Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Pairing Arrangements

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although you are concerned with the reputation of the House, you are obviously not responsible in any way, any more than your predecessors were, for pairing arrangements. Would you, however, consider it part of your duty to say that the way in which parties organise themselves, and make arrangements accordingly, reflects on the House's reputation?
It is now quite clear that the Government party cheated outright on Monday by pairing the same names with both the main Opposition party and the Liberal Democrat party, which is certainly unsatisfactory. It is deplorable that such cheating occurred. I hope that, since the Government are a minority Administration, they will behave somewhat differently in the new year.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not attempt to put words into my mouth. As he and the entire House know, the arrangements that political parties come to in this House are not at all the business of the Speaker.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a further point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, on this the last day before the Christmas recess, the Government sometimes make a statement. Have you had any indication, either through the usual business channels or whatever, that the Government will make a statement on pairing arrangements?
My point of order is a little different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) since I do not believe in the pairing system. I regard it as organised truancy. Frankly, I am pleased that the rest of my colleagues have been relieved from the pairing nonsense. I hope that, from now on, to the day of this Tory Government's demise, there will be no pairing. When we get into power, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) becomes Prime Minister and puts up the pink curtains in No. 10 Downing street, I hope that there will be no pairing, and we will drive through our legislation—new and old Labour.

Madam Speaker: I wonder whether that was really a point of order or just an expression of opinion. I think that the hon. Gentleman asked whether a statement would be made. He will have to wait and see.

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. David Porter: Before we go into the Christmas recess, I should like to raise some points about the economy and my constituency. Like many of our coastal communities and their rural hinterlands, Waveney's unemployment and some infrastructural obstacles remain stubbornly high. In Waveney, there is not the same relative prosperity, per capita income or inward investment that there is in most of East Anglia.
I have taken the view ever since I was elected that I should make a judgment on each issue before the House in the light of how my constituents will be affected. I am one of the happy minority of Members who represents the area where he was born and brought up. When I have decided not to support the Government—on Europe, fisheries, or health matters, for instance—I have done so with the best intentions of serving my constituents.
Many years ago, I first became convinced as a teenager of the Conservative philosophy of freedom of choice, free enterprise, freedom to spend more of one's own money and freedom from state control. Through my childhood I watched my parents working day and night to establish a small business in a shop over which we lived. I was in the sixth form during the 1964 general election campaign, when I saw two prominent Labour party Front Benchers, Fred Peart and George Brown, swan in and treat Lowestoft to a display of hypocrisy, contempt and arrogance that sickened me.

Mr. Paul Flynn: They still won the election.

Mr. Porter: Indeed they did, but that was old Labour. Since then, it has repackaged its image. The Conservative party has repackaged its image too, to some extent—freedom of choice has become an opportunity for all. That same basic gut feeling about offering opportunity made it possible for me, from an ordinary background, to become a Conservative Member of Parliament and speak for Waveney, as I am doing quite unashamedly in this speech.
We live in a world in which we have to accept regulation and control, where freedom exists under the law, and where responsibilities run alongside freedom of choice. It is a fact of life that sometimes the market needs stimulating, realigning and fine-tuning in the public interest, just as privatised industries need regulators.
I say all that by way of preamble, because I wish to praise the Government for listening to some of the representations that I and others, of all parties and none, have made about the need to inject public money in a structured and targeted way into parts of my constituency.
We have missed out on assisted area status each time so far. Great Yarmouth, up the road, has it, and there is no doubt that that fact has the potential to suck many jobs out of Waveney and into Great Yarmouth. However, we have objective 5b status, and from that some money is beginning to flow into a variety of projects.
This week we have had not merely an injection but a transfusion of money and targeted support. The Kirkley regeneration initiative, Lowestoft, has been successful


under round 3 of the single regeneration budget challenge fund. That is a seven-year scheme in an area rated as the second most deprived in Suffolk, which suffers from high unemployment and from social, environmental and crime problems. Incidentally, both Benjamin Britten and I were born there.
The scheme aims to support business and to introduce crime prevention measures, infrastructure improvements, health measures, drug and alcohol counselling, training for the unemployed, housing improvements and an expansion of tourism. The council failed last year with a bid for industry-led regeneration, and it has built on advice from the Government office for the eastern region—an excellent support body.
Over the full seven years, the scheme should receive £4.2 million in support from the challenge fund. That money, complemented by nearly £22 million of private sector funding and other public money, should create 100 jobs, support 75 business start-ups, fund 50,000 weeks of training, help 875 people obtain qualifications and 125 people obtain jobs, provide 10,000 sq m of new business and commercial floor space, and improve or build 400 homes.
Kirkley, which is in south Lowestoft, is an area of enormous potential, with the best beach in Britain. The news is good, by any standards. As required under the rules of the challenge, Waveney district council led the bid. What puzzles me is why the controlling Labour party on the council should be happy that the Government have accepted that deserving case, yet still threatens to do away with such competitive bidding. I do not understand why Labour wants to stop ensuring that public money goes where it will be well spent and is most needed. That is new Labour with its old roots showing.
In the rest of the county, Suffolk Prosper, another seven-year project, is to receive more than £750,000, yet still Labour would remove that targeted money and the competitive edge. Labour wants to stop keeping local authorities on their toes in that way.
We are also to receive almost £3.2 million for the final 1-km phase of the Lowestoft northern spine road, which will promote economic development and alleviate traffic problems, and which includes the provision of a major cycle track. In addition, under the local transport capital expenditure we shall receive £150,000 for a package to assist public transport, make pedestrian route improvements and encourage more cycling.
There are still major problems caused by the axing of the trunk roads programme before the A12 had been properly dualled from London to Great Yarmouth. The third crossing at Lowestoft is the one project that would best link all the other schemes and plans, all the hopes and aspirations of businesses and individuals. I have not given up on that, and I shall see my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads about it yet again next month.
We still need success under the challenge for help with funding for closed-circuit television cameras in Kirkley and south Lowestoft, as well as in central Lowestoft, to complete the major drive in which Waveney is fighting for Waveney. However, what we already have is significant, at a time when public resources are in such demand.
The Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council, the chamber of commerce and industry, and business link will all merge in April. The Lowestoft 2000 consortium of local business is marketing Lowestoft aggressively and effectively. Yes, things have been hard, but the horizon is bright, provided that we do not throw it all away.
The Futura project, and the "Caring for Education" initiative, both of which I have mentioned in the House recently, are new ideas—innovative exciting projects that will harness the best in local people, enterprise, and both public and private finance. Next year, East Anglia will have the east of England investment agency, which will serve Lowestoft and the other parts of my constituency, including the towns of Beccles, Bungay, Southwold and Halesworth. Truly the future is bright—the future is blue.
Of course it could be argued that all that money in grants, especially the European Union money, would not be necessary if the country were not paying a subscription to the EU. Our subscription could stay in the United Kingdom to fund the regeneration, the inward investment and the attraction of tourists, and to give business even lower taxes. But I shall not develop that argument now.
I shall finish on a truth that is a lesson for us all, including my right hon. and hon. Friends in government. A Government who respond positively to communities that are determined to succeed for themselves are an effective Government, a Government who truly extend opportunities for all.

Mr. David Winnick: Before the House rises for the recess, one or two matters should be raised. We all know that an election should have been held before now. The Government cling on desperately, hoping against hope that something will turn up to reverse the tide of public opinion that is flowing against them.
It would be far better for our democracy and for the political health of the country if the election had taken place in the autumn. Then the electorate would have decided accordingly. For a Government who have been in office for more than 17 years to hang on as a minority Administration is not in the interests of this country, and clearly we can expect the Government to remain determined to cling on until almost the last moment, to see whether they can stay in office.
Ministers seem to be adopting today's equivalent of the 17th-century monarch's divine right to rule. To them it seems almost an impertinence that there could be a different Government in this country. However, democracy depends on changes in Government and in the political parties that form Administrations; it does not mean one party being in power all the time. I believe that there is undoubtedly a wish for change in the country—we shall see whether I am right when the time comes—and that by clinging to office the Government are doing themselves no good.
If I may refer to the point of order that I raised earlier—without involving you in any way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and taking full responsibility for my own words—I shall add that in my view an apology is required from Ministers for what occurred on Monday.
If that does not happen, I hope that the policy announced by the Opposition Chief Whip will come into operation in the new year, and pairing arrangements will


come to an end. If the Government feel otherwise, it would be appropriate for the Leader of the House to make a statement on behalf of the Government Chief Whip before we rise for the recess today. That is the least that we expect from the Government.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: Not with any enthusiasm, but I suppose so, if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Arnold: I am flattered indeed. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he was a Member of Parliament in the late 1970s, when the Labour Government that he supported were in a considerable minority? Would he care to justify what went on then and tell the House about the skulduggery in the Labour Whips Office, and thereby show an interesting modesty?

Mr. Winnick: One thing is certain: at all times we have acted with dignity. [Interruption.] I see that the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway)—the Government Whip who is, rightly or wrongly, being held responsible for Monday's cheating—is having a laugh.
I remember one incident from the late 1970s that has not been and is not likely to be repeated. That was when the present Deputy Prime Minister, who was then a prominent figure on the Opposition Front Bench, picked up the Mace and started brandishing it. No wonder he acquired the nickname "Tarzan".
I was not present at the time—I was between parliamentary seats—but many of my hon. Friends were, and they witnessed that incident. So we do not require any lectures, least of all from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who will be extremely fortunate if he manages to hold on to his seat at the election. I imagine that he will be one of the casualties.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Deputy Prime Minister was not suspended when he did that, either.

Mr. Winnick: No, he was not—unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who has been suspended once or twice.
I want now to draw attention to what life will be like for many of our fellow citizens this Christmas. This should be a festive season and people should have the financial means to have a reasonably happy Christmas and new year but far too many people live in poverty or near-poverty. The proportion of people living in poverty has more than trebled since 1979, from one in 14 to one in four. The number of children living in poverty has soared from one in 10 to one in three. The number of people dependent on means-tested benefits has doubled, from one in 12 to one in six. On income, the bottom tenth of the population is 17 per cent. worse off in absolute terms, while the top tenth is almost two thirds better off. That has happened during the past 17 years.
Some might say that the figures were produced by the Labour party, but they are based on parliamentary replies from Government Departments. When the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is certainly non-party, published its report on income and wealth in February

1995, it concluded that the divide between rich and poor was deepening. It recommended a far-reaching programme to stop what it described as the damaging consequences of that divide.
It is unfortunate that so many of the things that we hoped had gone for ever, such as mass unemployment, poverty, large numbers of people on means-tested benefits, the many pensioners who live on the smallest possible income and who find it almost impossible—perhaps the word "almost" is unnecessary—to make ends meet from day to day, have come back to our country. That is why, on the eve of Christmas 1996, after nearly 18 years of Tory government, we should be deeply concerned about what has happened to our country.
I do not suggest that post-war Governments, including Conservative ones, had no social problems or that people did not live on small incomes. Things were far from perfect after the second world war, but we all hoped, in the 30 years or so after the war, that the worst sort of poverty and poverty-related illnesses had been removed from our country for good, that at least we had made that much progress since the 1920s and 1930s. We hoped that the social changes had not only been made but consolidated to form a permanent part of British society. It is an unfortunate curse that in 1996 so many of our fellow citizens, through no fault of their own, should live on incomes on which they cannot manage.
The statistics that I have cited show what sort of country Britain has again become. We have gone back to the past in ways that I and my hon. Friends hoped would never again return to our shores. The Opposition look forward to a change of Government and policy, to an honest Government that will be concerned with all our people, not one tiny section.
We can only conclude that this Christmas will be sad in many respects for the people that I have described who live on the barest possible income and who do not have anywhere near enough to live on. They include pensioners, many of whom served in the last war. They sometimes ask me, "Who won the war?", and we know exactly what they mean. Anyone who disputes that, disputes what is actually happening up and down the country. I only hope that we can change policies so that we can give hope to them that they will have enough to live on and will not have to live in circumstances that are disgraceful in an advanced industrial country such as Britain.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: We should not adjourn for Christmas without carefully considering several concerns of importance to my constituents. I wish to raise four issues: first, the success of the Government's private finance initiative and the opportunities that it creates for north-west Kent finally to gain our new district general hospital at Darenth Park; secondly, a matter that concerns my Sikh constituents, the state of human rights in their homeland, the Punjab; thirdly, the Kent Thames-side bid for the British academy of sports; fourthly, the south Thames-side development route phase 4, which is vital for the developments at Ebbsfleet in my constituency and to the peace and well-being of the people of Northfleet.
My constituents, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), rely on three ancient hospitals: Joyce Green, West Hill and Gravesend and


North Kent. We have been in the queue for 25 years for a brand new district general hospital, which would cost some £100 million. Each time that our local NHS has built up the project, the powers that be—under Governments of both parties—have considered it, gone white at the size of the price tag, and asked us to revise the project and find whether we could do it in phases. If we did it in phases, we would be trapped on the highly unsuitable Joyce Green site, north of Dartford.
That was the old NHS system: queuing up for the annual dole of capital funding—a system to which the Labour party would like to return. That is why I welcome the fresh thinking that the Government have applied through the PFI. Surely out there in the market, there are consortia that would like to bid to provide new district general hospitals, with the magnificent construction work that they involve; to provide estate management and management of the buildings, catering, cleaning and maintenance—everything that is required. That would be provided at a cost to the NHS, which would provide the doctors, nurses, medical administration and all that goes into making the NHS something of which people are proud.
In north-west Kent, we had five bidders to build, manage and run our district general hospital. Earlier this year, the Pentlands Healthcare group became the front runner to provide the hospital. It has provided a magnificent hospital on paper, which my constituents are looking at. It is not only excellent for the current population; it has immense scope for expansion as the Thames gateway developments bring thousands more residents into north-west Kent.
The PFI is wonderful for large capital projects, but it is hideously complex. Imagine the contracts running over 25 years, the disposal of current land holdings and all that that involves. That complexity needs the attention of Ministers to ensure that projects come through. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends in the Department of Health, the Treasury and the Department of the Environment for their positive interest and hard work in ensuring that this project will take place.
The Darenth Park hospital offers a magnificent opportunity for my constituents, so, in the spirit of Christmas, I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Ministers for what they have done. I would also like to ask them to keep up the pressure in the new year so that we can see bulldozers on that site soon constructing our new district general hospital—a hospital that has been possible only because of the Conservatives' PFI policy.
I should like to raise the subject of human rights in Punjab, as the chairman of the Punjab human rights sub-committee of the all-party human rights group in the House and also because it is my duty to express the concerns of the Sikh community of Gravesend and Northfleet in my constituency. That community has its roots in the province of Punjab.
Hon. Members will recall that, until 1947, the House was responsible for the affairs of India. When we departed from India, the then Viceroy, Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, negotiated the settlement for withdrawal jointly with the successor authorities of

Mr. Nehru and the Congress party. He did so in the clear knowledge that Nehru and the Congress party had given undertakings to the Sikh leaders, particularly those in the province of Punjab. Subsequent to those negotiations and independence, the Sikh community was betrayed over the assurances that it had been given. The sour atmosphere generated then led to the tensions and misery that finally led to the desecration of the golden temple at Amritsar.
The past few years have been highlighted by continuing incidents of police brutality in Punjab, which has been responded to by zealots, who range from those whose objective is civil rights in Punjab to those who have had enough and are calling for an independent state of Khalistan.
In common with all disputes of that kind, the victims are invariably ordinary people, in this case the villagers throughout the rural areas of the province of Punjab. In recent months there have been signs of improvement, but great concern is still being expressed about abductions and disappearances. I would like to draw the House's attention to two particular examples.
The first is that of Jaswant Singh Khalra, the general secretary of the human rights wing of the Akali Dal party, a Sikh political party. He has not been seen since September 1995, when he was abducted by the police. The police have since refused to reveal Mr. Khalra's whereabouts, and he has not been brought before a magistrate or charged with an offence. It is precisely that type of disappearance, of which there are many precedents in history, that causes so much concern. The second example is that of Mr. Harjit Singh, a 34-year-old, who, last year, was picked up by 10 plain-clothes policemen in Punjab. He was abducted and subsequently brutalised.
Those examples are just two from a wide variety of cases. I believe that the House should make it clear to the Indian authorities that we expect the Indian Government to comply with their obligations to protect human rights under the international covenant on civil and political rights. They should ensure that all allegations of torture, extra-judicial execution, custodial death, custodial rape and disappearance are fully investigated by an impartial and independent body. It is high time that India, which is deemed to be a country of the future, cleared up its own back yard and saw that human rights were protected.
My constituency is part of the Thames gateway. For many decades, north-west Kent has depended on heavy industry for its future. In the past 20 years, those heavy industries have mostly disappeared, although those connected with paper and cement still remain, but they rely on high technology and a highly skilled but far smaller work force than used to be the case. That is why we welcomed so much the enthusiasm with which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched the Thames gateway scheme and the vision with which that has been carried forward by the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration. The aura of the projects that the Government are encouraging offers great hope for the future. Those opportunities are already being realised, which explains the rapid fall in unemployment in Gravesham in particular.
The decision taken some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to re-route the channel tunnel rail link obviously raised considerable environmental concerns in north-west Kent, with which we are still struggling. It also brought one overwhelming benefit, however, with the Government's decision to locate the international station at Ebbsfleet in north-west Kent. That has provided immense opportunities for new development. In fact, it has been estimated that, in time, 30,000 new jobs will be created. Transport links will also improve to the extent that my constituents, who currently suffer a 50-minute commute to London, will be able to travel from the Ebbsfleet domestic station to the capital in just 19 minutes. The development also means that a series of new roads will be built in north-west Kent, not least to the new district general hospital.
Much needs to be done. That is why I should particularly like to draw attention to the bid from Kent Thames-Side Grouping for the British Academy of Sport to be located in north-west Kent. In the past few days, the Department of National Heritage and the Sports Council have shortlisted the many bids received to 12. The bid from the Kent Thames-Side is particularly fascinating because the academy might be located on the Swanscombe peninsula on the River Thames. It would be close to Ebbsfleet international station. We have thousands of acres that could be developed for sport and consortium of interested local authorities, companies and the like, which have put together the magnificent bid.
The north-west Kent location is close to London and it has a unique advantage because, were the academy to be based at Ebbsfleet, which borders my constituency, it would supplement magnificently the sporting facilities of the capital, and enhance its bid to stage the 2004 Olympics. I hope that my right hon. Friends will pay close attention to the bid from Kent Thames-Side, which would so enhance sporting opportunities for local people in my constituency as well as the bid from London to stage the 2004 Olympics.
Considerable concern has been expressed about the access routes in north-west Kent because of the construction of the high-speed rail link and the associated major civil engineering projects, which are due to start within the next few months as a result of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, which recently passed through all its stages in the House.
The principal projects will be the tunnel underneath the River Thames from the Swanscombe peninsula on one side of Northfleet, and the construction of the Ebbsfleet international station on the other side of Northfleet. It does not take much imagination to envisage the heavy goods vehicles that will roll through the town between the two major construction sites, because currently there is no alternative to passing through the centre of the old town. For that reason, I and many of my constituents have campaigned for an effective Northfleet town bypass, known in the bureaucratic world as the south Thames-side development route, phase 4.
Many hon. Members know all about backing bids for town bypasses—there must be thousands of such projects throughout the country and dozens of them in Kent alone. What has made the difference to my Northfleet constituents is the channel tunnel rail link

and the two major civil engineering projects to which I have referred. Without the bypass, the lives of my constituents will increasingly become a nightmare. It was for those reasons that the project was worked up, but I have to draw the House's attention to the crass incompetence of Kent county council in its handling of the project.
Almost two years ago, my constituents attended a public exhibition at St. Botolph's school, Northfleet, to see the details of the bypass project. The council's meandering slowness since then means that there are no signs that we shall have the bypass before construction starts on the two big civil engineering projects. In those two years, the council has meandered through designing the project; its department of highways has applied to the department of planning for permission to build the bypass; and it has considered how to accumulate the land and involved itself in a hideously complex and delayed process of land swaps between the Labour-controlled borough council and the Lib-Lab-controlled county council.
After two years, we find that the council has landed itself in such disputes over land that the whole matter has had to be referred to the Department of Transport for a public inquiry. I do not know how long that inquiry will take, and I hope that Ministers at the Department of Transport will do all they can to speed up that process, which has so far been handled with outrageous incompetence.
Nearly four years ago, I was distressed by Kent county council passing out of Conservative councillors' hands into the control of a coalition of Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. My only consolation was that several of the leaders of Kent county council's Labour group sat for Gravesham county divisions. I thought that they would at least give our town priority and get the bypass project through. Not a bit of it. Two years ago, the Government made it plain that they would accept two new highway projects in Kent, so those clever county councillors put the bypass in third position on their list. One year ago, the Government said they would accept one new project in Kent, so the councillors put the bypass in second position. The result was that the project failed, two years in a row.
I was delighted when my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Transport gave £1.5 million of special credit approval to get the project going. The Government clearly perceived the need for the bypass, and my constituents were grateful for the Government's interest in the matter. My constituents are now appalled that, because Kent county council has got itself into such a mess, that £1.5 million must be returned, unspent, to the Government. Given the time requirements of the inquiry, it is unlikely that any more money will be spent in the coming financial year. I hope that Ministers will examine this matter, highlight the incompetence of the Labour councillors who control Kent county council and exert pressure so that progress can be made.
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise these four, admittedly parochial, issues that are of great concern to my constituents.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. In the time available for the remainder of the


debate, no fewer than 11 hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. With a little co-operation, all of them might be successful.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I value the time for this debate, so I hope that I shall be able to express my views succinctly.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have been Members of this House long enough to know that one of the Government's habits is to wait until the House is nearing the recess and then provide—especially on the last day—a series of written answers containing a great deal of politically sensitive and difficult material. That is not a new trick, but is one that the current Government have played with total effrontery and, in the past few years, with an increasing lack of respect. I do not think that the Leader of the House is aware of the extent to which individual Ministries save up for the last day those matters that they do not know how to present and put them all on the Order Paper at the last minute. A classic example is the difficulties relating to the important issue of railway pensions.
I am an individual member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and I remember that, during the passage of the Railways Act 1993, there was a considerable altercation with the Government, who accepted that they could not deal with the existing pension fund by simply taking all the money into the Treasury and keeping it for their own purposes. The Government did not make it clear, however, that future pensioners of the railway industry would have to see large sums of money being taken out of the pension funds and used as sweeteners for private buyers of existing assets, yet that is happening on an increasing scale.
It is deplorable that those who contribute to a pension fund—either taxpayers or fund members—should suddenly discover that their moneys are to be used, not to enhance benefits for individual pensioners, but to improve the tax position of someone who is already buying assets that will be of considerable use in the future. When we examine carefully what has happened in respect of railway franchises, we see that some of them do not make sense—they are being lauded as of such advantage to taxpayer that the incoming companies will end up in a negative position: in other words, they will be paying the Government for the holding of the franchise.
I am a very trusting creature, but when I read that, my little brain thinks, "That's interesting—why should a commercial firm want to take over assets in that manner and be prepared to pay a considerable sum to the Government at the end of its period of tenure?" Then I read the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office on the award of the first three passenger rail franchises. We have not yet reached the stage at which we can use visual aids, which will come as a great relief to most hon. Members; but it is important that hon. Members should know that when I refer to the report, I am talking about figure 8 on page 33, which sets out the subsidy payable to British Rail in 1995–96 and to the franchise companies from 1996 onwards.
Figure 8 shows that there is an impressive fall in the amount of subsidy for the three franchises, so taxpayers should be delighted that they are, in theory, getting such

good value for money. Then one suddenly realises that, if those same companies know that they are to be given access to large sums of pension fund money, which they can use as they want in terms of contribution holidays, the reality does not match the appearance on paper. Far from the companies being disadvantaged in any way by having to pay contributions to the Government, they will have access to large pension surpluses to which they did not contribute and for which they are not responsible, but which the companies can use to subsidise their businesses.
In my opinion, that is sharp practice, and I think that members of the pension funds will agree with me. If there are surpluses in a pension fund, as there are in the British Rail fund, those surpluses should be used to enhance the benefits of those who contributed to the fund and those who work in the industry. They should not be consistently used to subsidise private companies.
That is an extremely unhealthy and unacceptable practice, which the Government have kept very quiet about. They have not sought to draw it to the attention of people considering the effects of the Bill that became the Railways Act 1993 or of people who currently contribute to pension funds. If it is such an excellent process, why is that the case? Why have not the Government simply said, "One of the deals that we shall make in unloading what we regard as loss-making services on to the private sector is that we shall give large sweeteners—£500 million sweeteners at every level—so that the franchise companies do jolly well out of it, whatever happens"?
There are fears—which, sadly, I believe to be well founded—that some companies will take the money from the public service obligation, bank it or squirrel it away and, when the going gets rough, find it very easy to go bankrupt. The 1993 Act provides that, if that does happen and private companies go bankrupt, the taxpayer, who owned the original asset, who lost that asset to a private company and who is sweetening that private company's finances, must pay for replacement services. Whichever way one looks at it, the taxpayer is caught coming and going, and that is reprehensible.
I am afraid that several nasty little bombs are sitting upstairs in the Press Gallery, waiting for the Government. When access is given to information, nasty questions are always tucked away in the Press Gallery long before they are given to Members of Parliament, and we might have a nasty habit of raising those matters on the Floor of the House just before we rise. That will not happen, because we shall not have the information.
I nevertheless believe that the Leader of the House has a specific task for the recess—to say firmly to some Ministers that, irrespective of party involvement, it does them and the House of Commons no good if that practice becomes more widespread. It is not helpful when Ministers say in a text that they hand out to the press, "We are thinking of privatising the Coastguard," and then, when Members such as myself question that, the Government say, "We did not mean that. The Minister did not say that. It is one of the things that he is thinking about, but he did not say it even though it was in the text." When Ministers of the Crown send out press notices and texts, if they do not intend to do what they have said they will do, they should tell everyone why they have changed their minds.
The acquisition of people's surplus pension funds will not damage the employees of the old British Rail—who, luckily, were protected by the action of Members of


Parliament who made public what was likely to happen—but future contributors under the privatised system will find their surplus pension funds used by their employers in a way that they are not aware of and would not support.
The House of Commons has a duty to examine more closely the behaviour of the present Government. Their stewardship is reprehensible, and I hope that we shall be able to alert the public to the appalling things that happen daily.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to raise three matters, but first I shall mention some pieces of good news.
It is splendid news that unemployment has fallen below 2 million—I understand that the precise figure is 1,938,000. Obviously, every person who wants to work and cannot find employment is a human tragedy, but the House will rejoice that unemployment has fallen below 2 million for the first time. I understand that there has also been an unexpected boost to retail sales and that the markets are reacting extremely well.
The second piece of good news is that the present Conservative Government introduced the national lottery. Increasingly, not enough credit is given to the Government for the amount of money given to various organisations in our constituencies. I am delighted, therefore, that yesterday I received a letter headed, "Third grant programme: Health, Disability and Care", telling me that the Basildon and District Crossroads organisation—a community-based respite service for carers of people suffering from short-term memory loss—will be given £118,477. That is magnificent. I know that all the local carers will be delighted.
The third piece of good news was the ten-minute rule Bill—the Abortion (Amendment) Bill—which I successfully introduced yesterday, to amend the Abortion Act 1967. I was delighted that it received an unopposed First Reading. I was slightly confused, however. An Opposition Member spoke for seven minutes against the Bill. There was a loud call of "Division" and I appointed Tellers but, for some reason, no Opposition Tellers were appointed.
I know that there is some difficulty between the Government and the Opposition at the moment, but I am confused. An Opposition Member spoke for seven minutes and any number of Members entered the Chamber to oppose the Bill. One would have thought that two Tellers could have been appointed from the people who opposed the Bill, but no doubt—

Mr. Tony Banks: I got in a bit of trouble about that yesterday. The hon. Gentleman is constantly confused about such situations. The voice of the hon. Member opposing the ten-minute rule Bill motion is what matters. There does not necessarily have to be a Division.

Mr. Amess: That is an interesting explanation; obviously we will rearrange our business in the House in future. I believe that the general public would draw the conclusion—

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, having made a slight clown of himself

yesterday, should choose to keep bringing the matter up. As it suits him to do so, however, let me explain, because he obviously does not understand. Yesterday he announced a date on which he believes that his Bill will be considered. If there is a debate, the House will have no trouble in considering what he proposes and voting then. This is a serious matter, and if the Bill were anything other than an extraordinarily self-seeking bit of publicity, the hon. Gentleman would be aware of that and would behave sensibly.

Mr. Amess: I do not need lessons from the hon. Lady. To suggest that many well-intentioned people throughout the country who supported the Bill yesterday thought that it was a clown is deeply distasteful. The hon. Lady knows that it was gutlessness on the part of several individuals who did not want the recorded vote, and that is a disgrace.

Dr. Robert Spink: Does my hon. Friend believe that the true explanation is as follows? Yesterday we were discussing one of the most important questions that could come before the House—not an issue to be taken lightly, as Opposition Members said earlier. It concerns the value, the sanctity, the dignity of human life, and I am ashamed that Opposition Members should speak as they have. Is it not a fact that the Opposition did not appoint Tellers, did not want to vote yesterday, because they were, rightly, ashamed of what they were doing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must inform the House that I was in the Chair on that occasion yesterday, and I ruled on the points of order then. Nothing has changed between then and now.

Mr. Amess: The first matter I want to raise is about a constituent in prison. No doubt we all have constituents in prison, and never before, in the years that I have been in the House, have I raised a specific matter concerning a constituent in prison. I have spent an enormous amount of time, however, on that constituent's circumstances; the wife visits my surgery every week, as does my constituent's brother, who is a constituent of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I shall raise one or two points about that gentleman's circumstances.
Just this morning I received a letter from my constituent's brother in the following terms:
Mr. X has been wrongly convicted by the use of fabricated evidence. This was 'observation logs' supposedly contemporaneously written by the police and since been shown to be provably false".
The complaints investigation bureau, he says, was granted a dispensation allowing it not to conduct further inquiries because of a 12-month time limitation statute—this despite the seriousness of the allegations, which were that the police had fabricated evidence and had lied on oath.
The point of most concern has been the refusal of the Post Office for more than a year now to answer the question whether a reward was paid following the rejection of my constituent's appeal. This matter greatly disturbs the family. I have tried to get an answer out of the Post Office; we are all busy people, but I have yet to receive a letter signed by the chairman. The last letter that I received stated:
As Mr. X will no doubt have made you aware, he was arrested by armed police officers of the South East Regional Crime Squad and was prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service for his


actions. The Post Office Security and Investigation Services were involved in the case to safeguard the interests of the Post Office and to assist if necessary with any specialist or commercially confidential information. Inquiries have been made at Sir Michael's request; however it transpires that the Post Office does not possess a transcript of the trial in this case. In the circumstances I am afraid that I cannot assist you with regard to any instructions that the trial judge may have had in relation to rewards.
As I have said, my constituents are greatly worried. I have a responsibility to my constituent who is in prison, and I intend to carry the case forward. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can do anything to help me, I will greatly appreciate that.
Next I want to consider a trip that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and I made to Brussels a few weeks ago to visit the Commissioner responsible for structural funds and the Fisheries Commissioner. We took with us a local fisherman and a local business person, and we had a very successful meeting. I had never met Commissioner Bonino before; contrary to what I expected, my meeting with her was a complete delight. We raised four points with her. She listened carefully to them all and responded positively.
By contrast, the behaviour of the local Labour Member of the European Parliament was quite extraordinary. He has had every opportunity to help local fishermen. When he learned from the newspapers of our trip, he wrote to us giving us "permission" to visit Brussels. It really is going a bit far to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and I needed this man's permission to visit Brussels. He also said that he would be happy to join us, but my hon. Friend and I were not happy to have the MEP along with us for our deliberations.
Commissioner Bonino told us that, during the two years this man has been a Member of the European Parliament, he has had every opportunity to meet her; she would be happy to meet him, she said, any time, any place—yet he has never chosen to arrange such a meeting. By asking to join my hon. Friend and me, he was clearly trying to get some free publicity. I leave the House to judge his actions.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that she was disappointed with announcements by Ministers. I, on the other hand, received this morning a letter from the Minister responsible for our fisheries who has been to visit our part of Essex. He is trying to do everything he can to secure extra funding for dredging the Thames estuary and to help the cockles industry.
My last point relates to local government in Essex, where controversy reigns between the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Indeed, they have had a great falling out. I understand that my right hon. Friend may refer to the issue later this morning. A Liberal county councillor in Brentwood is so fed up with all the arguing that he has joined the Conservative party.
Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) received a letter enclosing a Christmas card that one of his constituents had received from Basildon district council building control. That constituent has apparently only ever dealt with the council once—over a building application two years ago. The House will already know that Basildon district council has spent huge sums of money over the years on frivolous activities such as sending people Valentine cards. It would appear that the nonsense continues.
It has been widely reported that a well known former sporting personality who used to be active on the left wing of the Labour party has now joined the Liberal party. Last week the Liberal party organised a press conference to celebrate the fact. But the falling out between Labour and Liberal parties has meant that this new Liberal candidate has felt compelled to write to the local press. It is said, he argues, that in Basildon
I failed to win an injunction to overturn the party's women-only shortlist. This is untrue. I did invoke an injunction on the Basildon Constituency Labour Party alleging irregularities in the formation of the new CLP. Delegates had not been re-elected in accordance with Labour Party rules, and therefore meetings of the general committee were invalid. The parties to these proceedings were able to reach a settlement of all matters which arose from party procedures adopted following boundary changes in Essex. No admission of liability was made. The matter has now become academic since the 1995 annual meeting of the branches and of the CLP to which new delegates have been appointed. Both sides recognise the futility of further litigating what is a moot point. Financial aspects of the proceedings have been settled to the satisfaction of the parties.
It was also claimed by Labour Party central office that I was still a fully paid up member of the party. This is also untrue. I left the Labour Party at the beginning of the year. However, this did not deter central office from expelling me from a party I did not belong to.
The Conservative party is often attacked for its internal difficulties, but our differences over Europe, honest and straightforward as they are, bear no relation to the local difficulties in Essex between the Labour and Liberal parties. It all goes to show what broad churches those parties in Essex are.
The Liberals in Essex have made a complete farce of local transport by sending buses down Hobleythick lane; traffic movements on the Marine estate and the local fire station have also been badly handled. It is no good for the Liberals immediately to have a knee-jerk reaction about a local controversy, to jump on the bandwagon and then go completely quiet when their initial reaction is found to be wanting. In Hobleythick lane, a number of residents protested, but now we find that a number of residents want the buses. Initially there were proposals to change traffic movements—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way in which you can protect the floor of the House of Commons from this trivia?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may think it is trivia, but so far the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has been in order.

Mr. Amess: None of these matters are trivial to my constituents.
On the subject of traffic movements on the Marine estate, the Liberal council first announced that they wanted to alter traffic movements. There was a huge protest, and now the Lib-Lab council have had to back-track on that.
The final fiasco has been over proposed changes to the local fire service. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) attended what he thought was a public meeting last week at county hall, but he was not allowed to speak. Essex county council, which is controlled by the Liberals and the Labour party, has proposed many changes. After the local government settlement, we have


a 4.6 per cent. increase in funding for the fire service, but the council wants to shift resources from the south of the county to the middle of the county. The council wishes to downgrade the fire station on Canvey island in my hon. Friend's constituency and it wants to close Leigh fire station for the first time in 100 years. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is concerned about that prospect.
I will visit Basildon fire station later this week and I am concerned about the fact that the foam tender from Basildon will be relocated to Corringham. It is bit of a cheek for local Liberal activists to say that Essex county council's proposals are terrible and that it is all the fault of the Government because of underfunding. That is not the case. The council has been given more money than it has ever been given before and the fire brigade committee is headed by a Liberal county councillor.

Dr. Spink: I wish to clarify one point. The Liberal group on Essex county council accept that the purpose of the proposals is not to save money or make cuts, but to redistribute existing resources. The move is not Government-driven and all the political parties accept that point.

Mr. Amess: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House does not have time to answer all my points this morning, perhaps he could get the various Departments to write to me.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will recall that, a few moments ago, I drew the attention of the House to the fact that many hon. Members wished to take part in the debate, and I asked them to consider that. So far, in some cases, my request has been ignored. I hope for some co-operation from now on.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall be as brief as I can, but in contrast to some of the other contributions, I wish to refer to a matter of great national concern—indeed, a multi-million pound scandal, which I hope the Government will address urgently during the recess. I refer to the over-30-months cattle cull and the lessons that I hope Ministers are now learning for the new accelerated slaughter scheme that the Minister announced on Monday.
In a question to the Minister on Monday, I put this point:
paragraph 24 of the consultation paper suggests that the way in which the slaughter will be allocated to abattoirs will be similar to that under the 30-months scheme. Is he aware of the real concerns about the way in which a small number of abattoirs have profiteered and made a killing from the scheme? The new scheme must be put out to competitive tender."—[Official Report, 16 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 636.]
The Minister replied to an earlier part of my question, but made no response whatever to that latter point. For that reason, I seek the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in pressing Ministers to take a new look at the lessons of the over-30-months scheme.
Hon. Members will recall that the Minister announced the over-30-months scheme on 28 March. He took an arbitrary age with innumerable practical difficulties. The

Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Com mittee had recommended that the 30-months age limit should be used for the removal of specified bovine offals. The use of the limit for the whole carcase to be removed from the human food chain was a political decision and had no scientific basis.
An important article, entitled "How the Government turned the beef crisis into a £2.4bn gravy train", was published in the Daily Mail on December 5. It was written by Dr. Richard North who, as hon, Members will know, is an internationally recognised food safety analyst, to whom we are all grateful on this and many other issues. He wrote:
The scheme has devastated farmers, and taxpayers have been major losers but, as will be revealed on a Channel 4 programme tonight, a new scandal has emerged.
A small group of businessmen who own some of Britain's largest slaughterhouses have literally been making a killing out of the scheme, amassing windfall profits estimated at more than £200 million.
To understand how such a situation came about, we must recall the events immediately after Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell announced to the House of Commons on March 20 the link between Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and BSE. He cited a recommendation from … SEAC that—since some cattle over 30 months old might possibly be harbouring BSE infectivity, although not in the meat—all such cattle should be boned out after killing, before their meat could be sold. This process would allow the removal of potentially infected parts.
Immediately Douglas Hogg banned the sale of meat from all cattle over 30 months old, until a debonine scheme could be arranged.
It is clear that that was to be a temporary scheme. However, just as Ministry officials were about to send out instructions to specifically licensed abattoirs, cutters and butchers, there was a change of heart.
Under pressure from the National Farmers Union, itself blackmailed by the burger giants and the supermarkets, the Minister buckled and the over-30-months scheme for the whole carcase became permanent, not temporary. Richard North's article continues:
The overpayment scandal began when, faced with the massive problem of slaughtering millions of cattle, the Government bypassed the established practice of awarding contracts by tender. It gave 20 slaughterhouses—out of 470 in the UK—the rights to do most of the killing.
Although some independent slaughterhouses bid £20 per head, MAFF ignored them and awarded the favoured few a lucrative 'provisional' fee of £87 per head, plus the value of the hide, bringing the effective price to more than £100—a £100 million cash bonanza.
That was but the start of the scandal. Almost immediately, despite pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House, instead of allocating the competitive tendering bids to those who had submitted them, the Government gave the cull contracts to only 21 plants, although 72 had been approved and some 200 were eligible.
In the debate that I led on 13 May on the continuing delay and confusion that arose from the cattle cull scheme, the Minister mentioned, in answer to questions,
the 21 that are in it at the moment, but the larger number which I hope will come into it".—[Official Report, 13 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 703.]
In other words, other abattoirs might become involved, but no others were added for many weeks.
On 21 May, as we all know, the Prime Minister declared the infamous and totally counter-productive beef war, but surreptitiously the same afternoon he issued a


press statement removing the over-30-months scheme from the control of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and giving it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
At the same time, the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers issued a memorandum to its members that stated:
Rumours and gossip verging on the scurrilous are widespread. If for short term reasons these are wound up to produce political pressure on Ministers, we are concerned that the option remains for them to take emergency powers, requisition a small number of plants and take total control of the cull themselves".
In other words, Ministers were not in control.
During that period, both the big abattoirs and the Ministers were blaming the renderers for what had gone wrong. However, it seems that the renderers were asking only for through-put seven days a week for which they could cater. The smaller abattoirs were never told about that—in fact, they were bidding blind. Many of them would have been eager to participate and could have filled the Monday, Friday and weekend gaps.
There appears to be a hidden agenda. During that time, the industry was being restructured by default: bigger units were given greater responsibilities and bigger and bigger profits. We should remember that earlier this year, before the BSE bombshell, the Meat and Livestock Commission—which was being pressurised by larger abattoirs—was aiming for the "broilerisation of beef", as it is called in the United States.
At the end of the beef war, on 24 June, the Prime Minister said:
The targets that we have set are ambitious. It is now up to us in this country—the farming and ancillary industries and the Government—to ensure that we meet them. The point is that this timetable is essentially in our hands."—[Official Report, 24 June 1996: Vol. 280, c. 22.]
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food subsequently back-tracked on that unequivocal statement in the House, and have done so again this week.
The Prime Minister was confident because he said that the OTM cull would be completed by October, but that did not happen. The main reason for the failure to proceed with the so-called accelerated slaughter scheme was that the abattoirs could not cope with any more animals. An insufficient number of abattoirs were forced to try to conduct the cull. The idea was that the Minister would draw up a formal working document after Florence. However, we still have not seen it.
On 17 July, I took a small deputation comprising abattoir and incineration managers from the south-west to see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He assured us that the OTM cull delays and the backlog would be swiftly removed. Despite his explicit promise, that did not occur.
In August, the Government's auditor, Coopers and Lybrand, produced its second report—which remains unpublished. It said that the economic cost was £21 per beast and not the £87-plus being paid to abattoirs. It also pointed out that abattoirs could make a further £20 to £25 from the hides. Following a threatened strike by Northern Ireland abattoirs, Ministers caved in again and agreed to a £41 minimum payment and no backdating. It

is outrageous that the Coopers and Lybrand report has not been published. At the very least, the Public Accounts Committee must see it urgently.
From 23 October, farmers faced a 10 per cent. cut in the amounts that they received. The reduction was initiated by United Kingdom Ministers in Brussels and was aggravated by a revaluation of the green pound thereafter.
On 21 November, there was the curious case of the missing corpses. I pointed out to the Minister that, although the cull was progressing, nobody could put a figure on the number of carcases that were being refrigerated. Despite more questions on Monday, we still do not know how many carcases are in refrigerated storage. The Minister has not dealt with that huge problem, which also has lessons for the accelerated slaughter scheme.
While the farmers were forced to take a cut, not so the big abattoirs. There was a renegotiation in November which, again, was not published. Richard North's article—which succinctly reports what happened—states:
The only legal buyers, the slaughterhouses carrying out the disposals, were offering at times prices of £200 less than the official compensation rate. Millions flowed into their coffers by this route.
This exercise has evaporated now that the backlog has all but been cleared. But the slaughterhouses have not had to fall back on the profits of a mere £41 killing fee. Last month"—
that is, November—
they renegotiated their fee structure, bringing them up to £131 for some animals—backdated to August 26.
Thus, as the animals pour through the slaughterhouses of the favoured few, millions more are pouring into the owners' bank accounts.
The strangest thing about this whole episode, the most bizarre in the history of farming, is that it is continuing at all. Already it has cost the equivalent of a penny in the pound on income tax.
The cull could have been completed and the registration process introduced months ago. Why was it not done in July, August or September? Ministers now tell us that, from 1 April 1997, abattoirs will have to submit competitive tender bids, but only for the programme after that date. We hope that the new programme will be well under way by then.
The Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme entitled "Making a Killing", which was screened on 5 December, lifted the lid on the cull shambles and the scandal. Many hon. Members and I have tabled a motion demanding that the Public Accounts Committee urgently investigates what has occurred. If we do not know what is happening to taxpayers' money, there is a real danger that the European Union Court of Auditors will want to examine the finances. It could remove all the funding from Brussels that supports the programme.
For example, if the 15 per cent. from Brussels—which has not been paid yet—is removed, British taxpayers will have to pay about £300 million extra. Ministers provided no substantial answers on the Channel 4 programme. However, the Intervention Board said that it was confident that there was "no significant overpayment". What is "significant"?
There is a footnote to this sorry saga. Since he was charged with conducting the programme, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not spoken in a debate on the subject in the House. He has not answered questions or made a statement about the matter in the House. Is he to mastermind the accelerated scheme that the Minister of


Agriculture announced on Monday and is he answerable to the House for the huge sums of taxpayers' money that he is spending?

Dr. Robert Spink: Unemployment has fallen again by about 92,000. I have not seen that figure confirmed in writing but, if it is accurate, it means that unemployment has fallen from 2,030,000 to 1,938,000. We should celebrate that achievement throughout the country, because unemployment affects people dramatically.
While we are celebrating our excellent economic performance, we should contrast it with the performance on jobs and employment of countries in continental Europe, who are not performing as well as us. Perhaps that has something to do with their minimum wage, the social chapter, inflexible employment structures and non-wage labour costs, which are much higher than ours. We must resist placing such burdens on our industry, thereby making it less competitive and less flexible. We must not follow the policies that the Opposition parties advocate, which would destroy our competitiveness, our jobs and our economy.
Castle Point has shared in the good news. Unemployment peaked at about 4,600 during my time as the Member of Parliament and is now well below 2,500— a fall of more than 40 per cent. I cannot claim to have been instrumental in bringing about that decrease, but I can claim that the Government have been instrumental in setting economic conditions of low inflation, low interest rates, high inward investment and a highly competitive and flexible labour market and economy. That is why jobs have been created in Castle Point and why I am sure that the people of Castle Point will give their verdict at the next election on Opposition policies that would destroy and reverse the trend of falling unemployment in the constituency.
I come now to an equally serious matter. Mr. Geoff Lythgoe dedicated the last years of his life to building the business opportunities for the physically handicapped centre on Canvey island. He was a good man: he was community spirited and spent much of his time working for disadvantaged people. Sadly, he died in the middle of this year. I visited him in hospital just before he died, and he expressed his concern about the future of the centre. I helped Geoff s widow, Joan, to put in a bid to the national lottery. It was successful, and an award of £75,000 was made yesterday.
I am proud to have been associated with such a wonderful man, and proud of the Government's national lottery policy. That policy was opposed by 183 Opposition Members, who voted against the Second Reading of the National Lottery Bill. I am proud to have voted for that policy, which has created 100,000 jobs throughout the country and, I hope, will now create a few more on Canvey island in my constituency.
I want to focus on Canvey island, and to refer to the three issues that I raised on the front page of the Canvey Island Times before prior to the last election. I pressed for an independent sixth form on Canvey island. My Labour opponent fought vociferously against that initiative. The Liberal Democrat candidate was also against it. I have good news for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because year after year you have had to sit in that Chair and endure me batting on about a sixth form for Canvey island. You will not have to hear that again, because we won.
The Conservative Government awarded a sixth form to Canvey island last week. I am proud to have been associated with that battle. I am only sorry that the local Labour party so forcefully tried to prevent that facility being made available to the young people on Canvey island, and to the community of nearly 40,000 people. Labour has betrayed my constituents on Canvey island.
The second matter that I raised was the provision of an accident unit; I suppose that it could be called a cottage hospital for Canvey island. I pushed for that, and said on the front page of the Canvey Island Times that I was
Totally in favour of an accident unit for Canvey".
Neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats mentioned this health provision for Canvey island, either in the front-page report or during the election campaign.
On 19 March, the health authority said:
Following representations from Dr. Spink, we are investing in a package of services including an outpatient clinic and X-ray service in the former Council offices on Canvey.
I am proud to have been associated with the provision of that clinic. I shall speak in more detail about it in a moment.
The third matter that I raised in the front-page report in the Canvey Island Times before the last general election was the improvement in investment and rolling stock on the London, Tilbury and Southend line, which was then known as the misery line. It was unreliable, not punctual and a misery for my constituents. Investment of £180 million has been provided for resignalling and track improvements. Prism Rail, which took on the franchise, is to place a £150 million order for new rolling stock.
Two weeks ago, I had a photograph taken with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on one of the cascaded 10-year-old trains, which are replacing the 35-year-old trains. He has brought forward the policy of privatisation, which has enabled this investment. Furthermore, £14 million will be spent on stations, such as Benfleet station, to improve access for disabled people and to improve information and security. If people feel safer on the trains, they will be encouraged to use them. Those investments are to be welcomed.
It is a little surprising that Labour councillors—who fought tooth and nail against the privatisation that has led to those investments—should now try to associate themselves with the health clinic on Canvey island and with the investments by the privatised railway.
The health clinic on Canvey island will open in January next year. It will provide facilities for gynaecology; neurology; general surgery; orthopaedics; rheumatology; dermatology; urology; diabetes; blood tests; X-ray; ear, nose and throat; and midwifery. Facilities for ophthalmology and oncology, which deals with cancer, will be provided later in the year. My constituents deserve those facilities, and they have been provided entirely by Government money.
I am proud to have delivered on those three election promises for Canvey island. If I am determined and outspoken when I am fighting for Canvey island, so be it: that is why the people of Canvey island voted for me, and why they will vote for me again.
The cottage hospital is provided by the Southend-on-Sea hospital trust and the district health authority from Government money. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), my hon.


Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and I pressed the Minister for that extra money. We make no apologies for fighting hard for it.
I shall now refer to some matters that have not gone quite so well for Canvey island. The exit road from Canvey island is high on my list of priorities. It was high on the county council's list of priorities until the county council was taken over by Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. They control the council and have now put the exit road from Canvey island down the list of priorities.
The exit road is not needed just for convenience and to alleviate congestion; it is required for safety, because Canvey island is a special case. The Labour borough council has approved developers' plans. It should not have done that: it is proving to be the developers' friend, which is very sad. I fought against the de Savary land application that went to appeal and which the Secretary of State called in. The inspector found in favour of the applicant, but I fought on and went to the Secretary of State, who eventually supported me and turned down the application.
It is sad that Labour councillors are not prepared to back me and enable me to fight to prevent the new development proposals. They are proving themselves the developers' friends by approving the development against the wishes of the people. Such developments destroy our environment and communities. They overdevelop our communities and put too much burden on our infrastructure—schools, libraries and sewage works. Moreover, many jobs will be destroyed if an inappropriate, major, out-of-town shopping unit is built.
I come now to the fire station, which my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon has already mentioned. I shall cover this important matter in some detail.

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have asked hon. Members to be brief. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 11 minutes and now says that he is going into greater detail. He will prevent several Opposition Members from making a speech. That is selfish and an abuse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had hoped that my intervention would enable all hon. Members to speak if they so wished. I have no control over the length of hon. Members' speeches; they are responsible for that.

Dr. Spink: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall move on apace. I hope to take less time than the average taken by hon. Members this morning.
Councillors are seeking to close the full-time station on Canvey island, which would leave only a retained station with no full-time cover. It would be manned by part-time firefighters, who, in an emergency, would be called out to the fire station from their homes and work if they were available. Councillors state that this is not a cost-cutting measure, but is purely an attempt to ensure that fire resources across the county are most effectively deployed.
The Home Office has confirmed to me that to close the station or to convert a full-time station into a retained station would require section 19 approval. I have already

contacted Lady Blatch, and I shall be doing all that I can to put the case for keeping Canvey island fire station as a full-time station. It should not be closed.
Councillors say that they arrived at their recommendation following assessment of the standards relating to risk, response times, distances and the number of call-outs for engines. Those are interesting statistics, but it would be breathtakingly naive to fail to take account of the special circumstances that exist on Canvey island. In regard to risk, councillors now claim that people on Canvey island are not concerned about flooding; yet, according to a recent constituency-wide survey published in the "Westminster Report", people said that flood defence was one of the two top local issues, equalled only by the reduction in council tax. I can only conclude that the statistic has been misrepresented, because people on Canvey island are concerned about flooding—as anyone would be who lived there in 1953, when 58 people were drowned.
There are many special circumstances on Canvey island. It is a relatively isolated community, with a population approaching 40,000. During peak traffic times, when fires often occur, it is blocked off. That can happen at any time of day when there is a road accident: it has happened twice in recent times. Moreover, houses are tightly packed, and will be even more tightly packed following Labour councillors' recent decision to cram more houses in. That poses the risk that fires will spread and become major catastrophes. Furthermore, in comparison with the middle and the north of Essex, Canvey island is socially deprived, and the fire risk is much higher in areas of relative deprivation.
If councillors also close Leigh fire station—it is east of Hadleigh, while Canvey island is west of it—they will pull the fire engines from Hadleigh station in two different directions. That will affect the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon as well as mine, which is why he is fighting so fiercely to keep Leigh station open. The chief fire officer has admitted to me that the county council's recommendations would result in an increased call-out time, and therefore in a higher risk to life and limb on Canvey island. I do not wish to scaremonger, but that is a simple fact.
I am appalled that councillors are considering cutting our fire stations, when the Government have given them an extra £1,548,000 this year. That is an increase of 4.6 per cent., double the rate of inflation. There is no reason for the councillors to cut fire services; they should be improving them. South Essex is the centre of our wealth generating community in Essex—it is the centre of population—but, yet again, councillors at county hall in Chelmsford are deciding to move resources and facilities from the south of Essex to the centre and the north. They did the same with education and road projects throughout the last decade. I will fight to keep our full-time station open, and I am sure that the public are behind me.
Councillors cut funds for the flood warning systems on Canvey island by £4,000 last year. They also tried to get rid of 41 firemen, but, along with colleagues, I fought that successfully.
In recent times, Canvey island has done exceedingly well in some respects. There is the clinic, investment in the railways, the creation of jobs and the new sixth form—all developments that were entirely the Government's responsibility, and under their control.


Where the Labour-controlled borough council and the Labour and Liberal-controlled county council have had responsibility—fire services, flood warning systems and the exit road are examples—Canvey island has done exceedingly badly. Councillors should hang their heads in shame; and I know that they greatly fear the next local elections.

Mr. Tom Cox: I want to raise two issues. The first relates to London hospitals and health care services.
This is the beginning of winter. We never know what kind of weather we shall have in London or, indeed, elsewhere in the country, but we do know that, over the years, London has suffered from cuts in the national health service. Hospitals and wards have closed, and we have lost a great many beds.
My constituency contains St. George's hospital, Tooting. It is an excellent hospital, staffed by dedicated people, but they, along with staff in all the other London hospitals, are being put under increasing pressure to provide services. Last winter, we suffered on-going problems throughout the hospital, but especially in the accident and emergency department, where patients waited on trolleys for beds for hours on end.
Yesterday, the Evening Standard—which, to its credit, has played a major role in highlighting health care problems in London—published, on its front page, the headline "Emergency Wards Chaos", and, below that, the headline "Consultant quits in protest as crisis hits London hospitals". The report referred to my local health authority, the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth authority, which covers St. George's hospital. Chief consultant Dr. John Thurston was quoted as saying:
This is the beginning of our winter rush. Last winter was the worst ever with a major crisis in south-west London and we are expecting to see the same thing happen this winter.
Really, they should be expanding services rather than trying to run them down. It worries me and I don't want to be part of it.
Dr. Thurston has now resigned from his position as chief consultant to work in another hospital outside the area.
Dr. Thurston went on to say:
It seems extraordinary to me that just as we are coming up to winter, they are cutting down on services.
Referring to an adjoining hospital that faces enormous problems, he said:
Kingston cannot cope … They are inundated with work, as we are.
Geoff Martin, of the watchdog service, London Health Emergency, said:
We are scared because there aren't enough casualty departments in London now, and we are getting patients stacking up on trolleys in corridors.
It is now December. May I ask the Leader of the House what action the Government will take now—not in the coming months of 1997—to ensure that accident and emergency services, not only in my health authority but throughout London, can meet the needs of Londoners? The right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Secretary of State for Social Security, and he knows how vital the issue is to London. I ask him to convey to the present Secretary of State for Health the deep concern that I feel

about my health authority. I am sure that my comments could be echoed by many other hon. Members representing London constituencies, irrespective of party.
The other issue that I wish to raise is connected with the fact that, this week, the Foreign Secretary made the first visit to Cyprus by such a senior Foreign Office Minister for more than 30 years. As chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Cyprus group in the House, I welcome that visit. It was much heralded by pre-visit statements and, I understand, by an interview broadcast on the popular and respected London Greek radio station. Regrettably, however, the Foreign Secretary's visit lasted for less than 24 hours.
I have a copy of the Foreign Secretary's statement, and the 10 points highlighted by him during his visit. Much of this is well known, as it is based on United Nations statements and resolutions. I assume that the 10 points constitute the Government's policy on Cyprus. I fully support comments such as those about the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus and that there will be no right of petition or secession. I also support the security of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots being achieved by international guarantees and the membership of Cyprus of the European Union. No doubt many hon. Members fully support those aims.
Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary's statement did not include the important issue of the role of Turkey and Ankara. That is a key factor in any negotiations because of Turkey's continuing contacts with Mr. Denktas. Sir David Hannay, the British special envoy to Cyprus, regularly visits Turkey for discussions. We expect Turkey to play a major role in the negotiations. We must never lose sight of the fact that, a year ago, Turkey became a member of the European customs union. As we all know, there are trade-offs in politics. A country that achieves a desirable aim, then, should be helpful on issues on which it has influence, as does Turkey on Cyprus.
I welcome Turkey's involvement, but as one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus and a member of the Commonwealth, we must make it clear that, while Turkey is welcome in the negotiations because of the role that it can play, it will have no veto whatever, and certainly not on a settlement or on the issue of Cyprus's membership of the European Union.
Another issue that was not mentioned in the Foreign Secretary's statement was the demilitarisation of Cyprus. Mr. Clerides, the President of the Republic of Cyprus, has presented a plan for that and such developments are vital because, as we all know, there has been an enormous build-up of arms in Cyprus. It would be interesting to know the view of the Foreign Secretary and the Government on President Clerides' proposals on demilitarisation.
This week, the British press gave a great deal of coverage to the Foreign Secretary's visit. After 22 years of division in the island, we certainly want an honourable settlement. I wish the talks that start next year every success, but already there are demands from Mr. Denktash—as there have been since the events of 1974—in connection with Cyprus's membership of the European Union. He is hostile to that, and has views on sovereignty, security and territory in Cyprus. Yesterday The Independent stated:
Turks pour cold water on Rifkind's Cyprus mission.


That shows that, within days of the Foreign Secretary's visit to Cyprus, Turkey is not all that interested in the proposals. Is that true?
I hope that the Government will make their position plain, because hon. Members wish to see the rights of Greek and Turkish Cypriots fully honoured in any settlement. I hope that the Government and all parties represented in the House will make it clear to Mr. Denktash and to Turkey that they must play a constructive role that works towards a settlement. We should set out what we expect from next year's discussions.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken about the importance of the 1997 discussions. We need to know from the Government the role of the United States of America in those talks. The USA has had a special envoy in Cyprus, and the new Secretary of State, Mrs. Madeleine Albright, has a knowledge of Cyprus. The United States certainly has a role to play there, and I hope that we will work in full support of that country throughout the discussions. It knows how crucial are the issues surrounding a united Cyprus, especially because of the continuing tensions in the Mediterranean area, in which Cyprus is an important country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are 45 minutes to go before the start of the winding-up speeches and, in that time, five hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I hope that they will all be successful.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made a powerful contribution on the issue of railway pensions and sweeteners. I say amen to what she said. I have a question which I hope will be answered during the winding-up speeches. Can the Leader of the House find out from the Treasury its assessment of the proposed saving to the taxpayer of this so-called sweetener operation? The same question could be asked about the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment. With that I couple the question, what will be the objective device that the building industry trusts? If the research facility is privatised, there will be deep questions about whether contractors would be willing to go to a private building organisation in the way that they have gone to the BRE in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) will know about that because he was engaged in running the council.
I wish to raise two matters, one of which is extremely urgent and relates to the dreadful events last night in Lima, Peru. It is not clear whether British subjects were involved. Sally Bowman seems to have got out and it appears that the British ambassador left before the raid started. The incident raises urgent issues, one of which is international violence. For the first time, possibly for hundreds of years, there is no war in the world. However, there is much interfactional violence ranging from events in Chechnya to, now, Lima. I speak as the vice-chairman of the all-party Latin America group. I went to Lima in 1984 and had to go through armed guards to the private

house of the ex-Prime Minister, Manuel Ulloa, who was Prime Minister at the time of the Falklands war—which was the subject of my visit. There were also guards when we went to see President Belaunde Terry.
Peru is a violent country and the Shining Path organisation may be among the roughest, toughest and most determined terrorists on the face of the planet. I am sorry for the Government of Peru. This is an urgent matter for us all because there could easily be copycat incidents. First, I seek any kind of information from the Government about British involvement. Secondly, what measures are likely to be taken for the protection of our embassies' where such incidents, alas, are all too likely to happen? We must never underestimate the copycat factor in the light of such an incident. I ask for a statement on that matter.
My last point has been raised endlessly. Can some judgment be arrived at, at last, after eight long years, on the Lockerbie issue? For the first time, there will not be a service this year at Westminster abbey. It is eight years since, on a point of order, on that dreadful evening as the rumours filtered through, I asked about the crash of a huge airliner not far from my constituency.
Not only are the relatives still dissatisfied, but sanctions go on and on against Libya. That damages British industry. There is a project worth about $10 billion, but the beneficiaries are not British firms, as they might have been because many Libyan decision makers were educated at our technical colleges and universities and not, like those in many Arab countries, in the United States. The loss is Britain's. Apart from moral considerations, this is an urgent matter for British industry.
I recognise that, in the early 1980s, the Libyans were not angels. I accept the views of the right hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham) and others who have had ministerial responsibility that arms went to the south of Ireland from Libya and that they should not have done, but that is different from saying that Libya was responsible for the Lockerbie crime. It is eight long years since it happened.
Before we come back on 13 January, could some serious consideration be given to the matter? In his answer to my written question yesterday, which has not yet appeared in Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
The Arab League and some Arab Governments have pressed for sanctions to be lifted and a compromise reached on Lockerbie.
That is also the view of many African Governments. President Mandela wrote a personal letter on the subject to the British Prime Minister. Before we come back, could some serious reflection be given to an on-going, deeply unsatisfactory position?

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who always raises matters of key importance and who campaigns persistently on issues. Many of us should learn from him about the way in which matters should be approached, especially in a debate such as this.
I wish to raise the issue of opencast mining in the north-east corner of Derbyshire. That issue affects the well-being of people in my constituency and in the Chesterfield and Bolsover constituencies.
I want to place this in the context of the pit closure programme. No pits remain in Derbyshire. A European Community document entitled "Commission Report on the Application of the Community Rules for State Aid to the Coal Industry in 1994", which has just been published, points out that, during 1994,
British mines whose production costs were lower than those in other Member States and which were only slightly subsidised have had to be closed for lack of a market while high-cost mines are still being worked elsewhere in Europe—a situation which has helped push up the amount of aid per tonne in the Community very considerably".
If we had only had a level playing field, we would still have pits and the communities around them in north Derbyshire, and we would not have the problems of opencast mining.
The north-east corner of Derbyshire is built on coal. There are great seams of coal from Leeds to Nottingham and Derby. North-east Derbyshire is in the middle of that. To the western side of the region, there used to be cutterills, drift mines and bell pits. To the east, the mines became deeper, so the ones that were closed were deeper mines, with the communities around them then being devastated. There is now great opencast potential in the region as we do not have the pits, and we are in danger of the green belts becoming black belts.
In the region, Budge, Fitzwise and H. J. Banks are the main operators seeking opencast avenues—and some are operating such mines already. Fitzwise and H. J. Banks have headquarters in my constituency. Arkwright is the major operator in the Bolsover constituency. Its operation involves 3.5 million tonnes and covers 417 hectares, which is a considerable development. In view of that, there should be no further development for some considerable time.
The cumulative impact of the operations—those where plans have been agreed and those where applications have been made—is considerable. I do not know how seriously minerals planning guidance note 3 takes the cumulative impact into account, but historical operations, some of which are still being used for landfill purposes, are not taken into account. The guidance note should be altered, as should much else in the note, to tighten the scope for possible applications considerably.
I raised this matter yesterday at Environment Question Time and I received the wrong answer from the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, who said that historical cases were taken into account, which is not so, as anyone who examines MPG note 3 will see.
Derbyshire county council is placed in something of a cleft stick in relation to applications that it receives. It has the MPG hanging over it, and the MPG is disposed towards the acceptance of opencast applications, although the Government deny that. If the council rejects an application, however, the cost of an appeal is a considerable burden for an authority that is strapped for cash. On numerous occasions, I have raised the problems of Derbyshire county council and North East Derbyshire district council in relation to the standard spending assessment and allocation of money from Government sources. That obviously affects this whole game.
My constituents will be affected considerably if three operations go forward. The first is at Avenue Cokeworks, which has been closed. There is considerable contaminated land on the site. It is surrounded by the

built-up regions of Grassmoor, Wingerworth, Tupton and Chesterfield to the north. Operations at the works cannot be easily hidden as it is in a valley, with a railway line running through the middle of it. A serious investigation is needed into the impact of operations at Avenue Cokeworks for the work force and nearby residents.
Twenty-nine claimants are operating through a Birmingham solicitor with cases relating mostly to cancer-13 ex-workers and 16 residents. Twelve are women, who live in two streets north-west of Avenue Cokeworks. The agreement that the operation should go ahead should be called in. The case is being pursued through judicial review, but there are massive problems in the region—not just the usual ones involving transport, disruption and the danger of asthma, which is a big problem at Grassmoor primary school, for instance, but serious problems involving the removal of contaminated land.
The idea is to move the former plant and to bury the contamination on the site; yet nearby at Grassmoor Lagoons, where tar and chemicals from Avenue Cokeworks are treated, bio-remediation is going to be used by the county council. If bio-remediation is appropriate in the case of Grassmoor Lagoons, it is likely that it would be also be appropriate in the case of the Avenue Cokeworks.
The second case is at the Breck. The application involves a site north of Barrow Hill and South of Eckington. The majority of the land in question is an attractive green area, currently in intensive agricultural use, with the exception of a disused tip which contains chemical and foundry waste and two oxbow lakes used as a fishery. The opencast operation would last for seven years and would provide for a waste disposal facility that would come into operation within the first year of opencasting and last for a further 19 years.
An average of one train per day would arrive at a railhead to the south of the site. Its 50 sealed containers would be unloaded and transported by road to the site. That would account for 70 per cent. of the waste. The remaining 30 per cent. would arrive entirely by road. If time permitted, I would illustrate the great problems involved in that application. Hon. Members, especially Labour Members, who know the area will understand the difficulties.
The third case is at Heath, next to junction 29 of the M1 motorway. It is a peculiar application which goes first to the district council because there is an argument that platforms should be built for firms operating as redistribution centres. Conveniently, an application will then go to the county council to get out coal that would otherwise be sterilised. The argument is that the ground there will need to be impacted. That is a great problem within the area, because certain firms moved to an industrial estate nearby on the understanding that opencast operations would not take place.
The cases that I have illustrated need to be added to other cases in which applications have already been accepted and where operations are taking place. I commend the Labour party's alternative points about opencast mining, one of which says that there would be a
rejection of planning applications for opencasting where they may prejudice efforts to attract other investment in the locality.
I hope that that would also apply to existing investment, which would cover the third case that I mentioned.
These issues should be debated seriously in the House and I hope that there will be an opportunity to do so in a more comprehensive way at a later stage.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: I want to use my short speech to wish people who live in Nottingham and use the national health service there a happy and healthy Christmas and new year. I also extend that greeting to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am extremely concerned about Nottingham health authority, which meets tomorrow and faces some difficult decisions about priorities. It is fair to remind the Leader of the House that,in the Budget statement last month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—also a Nottinghamshire Member—told the House that priority would be given to health service issues. He told the Nottingham Evening Post on 27 November:
I think you will find that he"—
the chairman of the health authority—
has got a lot of extra money.
The reality is quite different. The health authority faces a standstill budget next year.
The basic underlying problem for the health authority is that it has been underfunded against the national formula for many years. In the current year it received 97.22 per cent. as against 100 per cent. funding. Next year, it is suggested that it will receive 97.56 per cent.— a move of just 0.34 per cent. towards the target. I say quietly and determinedly to the Leader of the House that at that rate of change it will take another seven years for it to reach average funding. It is clear to me and to those who live in Nottingham and work in the health service there that it is not receiving its fair share.
I commend everyone in Nottingham who has lobbied on what has become a bipartisan issue. It has involved hon. Members from all parties. I congratulate the chairman and chief executive of the health authority and all who work in the trust. We all want what is best for Nottingham, which is to reach the 100 per cent. target as quickly as possible.
In the longer term, I want to see more than that. Nottingham is a teaching district and, traditionally, teaching districts have had more than 100 per cent. funding. Camden receives 107 per cent., Manchester receives 106 per cent. and Ealing receives 104 per cent. They are all teaching districts. Nottinghamshire has a centre of excellence in the Queen's medical centre and, in the longer term, we need a greater slice of the cake.
Next year the health authority will have an extra £5.85 million to spend on hospital and community health services. However, it is not so clear-cut as that, because the uplift in its budget is just 2 per cent. and inflation will run at more than that. It is again being asked to make efficiency savings of 2.7 per cent. There comes a time when it is impossible to make any more efficiency savings.
In the Queen's medical centre—the biggest hospital in Europe—routine operations are not taking place this month or next month. I speculate—I do not think that

I shall be far from the truth—that within the next few weeks major redundancies will be announced at the hospital. The City hospital has faced one efficiency saving after another and cut upon cut. I do not believe that much more can be done to save money there.
I wish the health authority well in its decision making tomorrow. It faces a difficult task and will have to make some hard choices. Its task would be made much easier if it and the people who live in Nottingham had a fair deal and received 100 per cent. funding. The Leader of the House will know that there is still extra money to be allocated within the NHS for next year. Perhaps he could look at the matter and talk to colleagues in the Department of Health so that some extra help can be given to Nottingham and so that people who live there can truly have a happy and healthy Christmas and a successful new year.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On today's Order Paper there are three early-day motions drawing attention to the deplorable deterioration in the quality, accuracy and truthfulness of answers to questions tabled by hon. Members. It is a serious matter. The three instances quoted are taken almost at random because it has become routine recently to have answers that fit the descriptions that I have mentioned.
One answer is from the Northern Ireland Office. It said that certain documents were in the public domain. After a thorough search, using the time of my staff and the Library, and after a letter to the Department, it had to admit that the documents were not in the public domain.
The second instance refers to a contemptible and contemptuous answer given to an hon. Member last week. When he asked how many representations had been made about the possible closure of benefit offices in Wales, he was told, "A number."
The third issue is a matter of considerable seriousness, and it causes a great many problems not only for my constituents but for the constituents of all hon. Members. I tabled a question about an obligatory form—no other form can be used—to appeal against decisions made on social security matters. I received an answer from a Social Security Minister, telling me that, at my request, he had placed a copy of the form in the Library. No form was in the Library. A fortnight after the regulations came into force, on 21 October 1996, the Minister had to confess that the forms had not yet been printed, and that they would not be printed for a further fortnight. That is an utter disgrace.
The fourth matter does not appear on today's Order Paper—although it should—because the Table Office had difficulties with the wording. It is also a clear case of a Minister not telling the truth to the House. I am limited in the language that I can use in this matter, although we have recently heard such words as "dissembling". In the early-day motion, I stated that the House
notes the deliberate, calculated untruth contained in a recent answer.
I used those words—instead of "lying", which I would have used outside the Chamber—because there is clear, incontrovertible evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead the House.
I had tabled a question, which was dealt with by the Metropolitan police. My question is included at the top of the reply from the Metropolitan police, of 15 November 1996. It states:


Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of the police participation in the state opening of Parliament.
The reply, of 200 words, then provides the answer to my question, and includes full details and explanations of how the costing was determined and the factors that were considered. It gives a figure of £286,000. Any hon. Member would greet with pleasure such a full and detailed answer. On 20 November, however, I was told by the Home Office:
costs of police staff who took part in the ceremony are not separately costed."—[Official Report, 20 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 621.]
In fact, they were indeed separately costed: Ministers had that document, and they lied to me. I tabled further questions, asking them to confirm that they had received the document. I received a reply confirming that they had received the figure, but the reply did not contain one syllable of apology or regret about the earlier answer.
I have raised these issues with Madam Speaker, and I shall raise them again. I believe that the events occurring in the dying days of this Parliament demean this institution. They attack the integrity of the House and reduce and undermine the role of all Back Benchers. Although we have the authority of our majorities behind us and we speak not only as individuals, our questions have been answered in that manner. We bring matters to the highest forum in the land, but they are treated in a contemptuous and contemptible manner. The Minister did not confess that he had not answered my question according to the Government's instruction to Ministers not to withhold information because it might be politically embarrassing.
My question was about a matter of great concern. The figures reveal that the state opening of Parliament cost approximately three quarters of a million pounds. Some believe that there should be a state opening once per Parliament and not once a year. There have also been indications that the police and many others resent having to provide 1,500 policemen and 1,500 soldiers for it. The ceremony has become increasingly meaningless. This year, for example, the Queen's Speech was found to be of little value because a few hours after it was made the Prime Minister changed it.
The mother of Parliaments is becoming debauched. Recent events have included "Conway-gate" and the resignation of a Minister, who made no act of contrition. We have used the word "dissembling" about that event. We must remember our role as the mother of Parliaments, and that as leaders of the nation we should set an example of morality. As Chaucer said:
If gold ruste, what shall iren do?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) down the path that he has been treading. However, I should like to follow his colleague, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and underscore his plea about Peru. I do so as one whose family members work there and whose cousins were born there. I understand some of its pressures and problems, and also the problem of copycat action around the world.
I should like to say a word of thanks to the Leader of the House. At Business Questions last Thursday, I pressed him on Northern Ireland's omission from the Protection from Harassment Bill. It will now be included by negative resolution.
I believe that the House should not adjourn until it addresses three issues. The first is pressure on residential homes—particularly in Northern Ireland, but also elsewhere. The problem of running the homes is specifically acute in Northern Ireland because the Department of Health and Social Services ultimately holds the purse strings. The point has been bluntly made that in the past 10 years the £260 permitted per week for residents in those homes has not even kept pace with inflation. The tragedy is that statutory homes are allowed more per resident than voluntary or private homes.
Private homes were encouraged to develop, but now they are increasingly being put under strain. The Craigavon trust area, for example, which is responsible for three subsidiary areas, is able to assess and allocate to residential homes only one resident per month. It is also wrong for the Government to rely continually on charitable, voluntary homes to provide care for residents. The reliance is aggravated by the fact that, because of national agreements, auxiliary staff in voluntary homes are paid about 50p less per hour than employees in statutory homes. Staff are trained in voluntary homes, but as soon as there is an opening they move on to better positions in statutory homes, putting more pressure on voluntary homes.
The second issue is more of a constituency matter, concerning the desire of the Sports Council and of the Green Park trust—although the desire has been manifested across the nation—for greater excellence in sportsmanship. The realisation of that goal requires sports medical facilities. I should like to think that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland will help the private sector and those working in the voluntary sector to provide facilities—in a centre for sports medicine, in Musgrave Park hospital, which is part of the Green Park trust—including orthopaedic and physiotherapy care. That is an important objective.
There is a growing belief, which I welcome, that there should be greater participation in sports and that we should raise the standards of our sportsmen. However, injuries occur. That project would provide an opportunity to expand the excellent service already provided by the Gait unit in Musgrave hospital, so that it could serve as a regional centre for excellence for sportsmen and women in Northern Ireland.
My third brief point relates to education. I know that the local management of schools initiative has been going for some time. However, there seem to be differences in its implementation. It appears from information given to me that those schools with fewer than 250 pupils registered are in greater difficulty than the larger schools.
It is a scandal that governors in some schools in Northern Ireland have granted substantial pay increases to principals while the management has had to reduce the number of teaching staff. That will have to be addressed sooner rather than later.
My attention has been drawn to one school in County Down which has not only lost its principal—it was certainly not able to increase his salary—but has now been asked to undertake more work and provide services


with a budget already overdrawn by £30,000. The school is being asked to shoulder the increased salary costs of teachers. It is impossible to do that with a deficit budget.
One knock-on effect of that is that rural communities will be disrupted again, with schools being closed by so-called market forces. There will again be a drift from rural communities to the towns. That is not always best, because the harsh reality of life is that, the larger our centres of population, the more the likelihood of growth in deprivation and the development of mischievous incidents. From my experience, larger schools are not necessarily the best, although I attended one that was definitely outstanding. It is important to provide the best education that we can for young people in rural areas. I ask that consideration be given to that cry not just for my constituency, which is urban, but for rural areas throughout Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Given the shortness of the past few speeches, which were models of their kind, there might have been an opportunity for one of the other hon. Members who were in the Chamber earlier to participate. We have not had an overly successful three hours, because the time has not been used as we intended. Three hon. Members—the hon. Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Castle Point (Dr. Spink)—took 55 minutes between them and raised matters that would be better raised in local government than in the House of Commons.
Having attended many of these debates in the past few years since we changed the procedure, I put it seriously to the Leader of the House that we might consider having a ballot the night before for a mixture of five and 10-minute slots, to be allocated to hon. Members by name, in which they could still raise any subject that they wanted. That would be far better than our current hit and miss procedure, with excessively long early speeches denying many hon. Members the opportunity to raise important matters.
I cannot touch on all the matters that have been raised; nor, I imagine, will the Leader of the House be able to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) talked about the health service in London, saying that it was trolley time again in London hospitals. I suspect that we shall hear a good deal more about that in the early months of next year, as the winter starts to bite.
My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of Cyprus, mentioning the fact that the Foreign Secretary was able to visit for only 24 hours rather than the 48 hours planned. I am sure that the Leader of the House and his Cabinet colleagues will take note that overseas ministerial visits in 1997 will, of necessity, be a good deal shorter than originally planned. That is not good for the conduct of business or for British interests overseas, but it is a consequence of matters being dealt with in the House. That is the price to be paid. There is a net loss to the country as a whole, but, by and large, people will be prepared to pay that price.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised the serious issue of opencast mining, particularly the health hazards of the planned and existing

opencast mines in north-east Derbyshire. Ministers will have to address those issues. Clearly, the Leader of the House can only pass them on, but Ministers should take a more proactive view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the events in Peru overnight. We would appreciate any up-to-date information that the Leader of the House has.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) made the model speech of the morning. In five minutes, he raised one issue in a targeted way—the health service in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire and the effects on his constituents. I have no doubt that he will be back on that issue in 1997.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) raised the worrying issue of the accuracy of parliamentary answers. The Leader of the House is not responsible for the inaccurate answers, but the accuracy of answers should concern him more than it does most Cabinet Ministers, because he has a House of Commons role. I should be grateful if he would say something about that.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about the BSE crisis—an issue that we shall keep coming back to in 1997, because the bill will fall to the incoming Government. In particular, he raised matters relating to the cull and the gravy train that is operating to the benefit of a few slaughterhouse owners. That has been alluded to in the past. I have been present for many of the statements in the House. The hon. Gentleman made specific allegations that the taxpayer is not getting value for money. It is clear that, if the rules of local government were applied, Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would probably be surcharged for not obtaining value for money by proper competitive tendering arrangements.
Another worrying fact made clear by the hon. Member for North Cornwall—I was not aware of this—is that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is in charge of the public face of the BSE cull, appears not to be accountable to the House for the management of the operations that he is conducting on behalf of the Government. I do not understand how he has escaped that—probably by offloading and transferring written questions. There ought to be some means of accountability to the House by the Minister responsible for the expenditure of more than £2 billion, rising to £3 billion. As I recall from a previous Red Book, that sum amounts to the entire contingency fund.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the worrying fact that only 21 of the 72 approved slaughterhouses were used for the work, with slightly more being used later. The big boys of the industry have clearly ripped off the taxpayer, with much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of public expenditure going to them in direct profit, while probably hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses have been destroyed. Looking at the figures in detail, it does not make sense that so much of the public expenditure on dealing with the BSE crisis has lined the pockets of the wrong people, to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, while so many small businesses have been destroyed. The issue cannot be dealt with in this morning's debate, but when the bills are picked up in


1997, those accountable for the disaster should be required to pay the price. That price will be in more than pounds, shillings and pence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised the issue of the British Rail pension fund robbery, which is what it amounts to, given that £8 billion of assets exceed the liabilities by £1 billion. Such "robbery" has been going on for a long time, and is related not only to privatised industries but to the private sector as a whole.
From some figures in the Financial Times this morning, it is clear that the proportion of surpluses being taken by companies is exceeding that returned in benefits to pensioners by a ratio of more than 10:1. If there is inside knowledge or good guesswork on pension fund surpluses, low offers can be submitted for companies—especially those in the public sector—that are put up for sale. Companies are queuing up to pay the Government for up to seven years for the franchise of rail companies, which on the surface does not seem to make sense, because they are laughing all the way to the bank by being able to exploit British Rail pension funds.
Such activity occurs in the private sector, too. Many of my constituents have been affected by Lucas Industries plc raiding the company's pension fund surplus. That company has not paid a penny piece in employers' contributions for years. That is exactly what will happen in the railway industry as companies seek to take a pensions holiday. It is no good anyone saying that the matter rests with the trustees: many of them are quite weak, some turn out to be in the company's pocket and not truly independent, and, although most represent current members who are paying into the fund, they certainly do not represent current pensioners.
The matter will have to be dealt with. I understand that the pensions ombudsman has ordered National Grid to pay £44 million back into the pension fund, which may happen in the rest of the privatised sector. Nevertheless, Ministers should address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. If the Leader of the House cannot do so, he should ensure that we get an early and full response from Ministers. There will obviously be investigations—I suspect by the National Audit Office—which will take a long time. It would be very convenient if we could have answers well before the date of the general election is announced so that Ministers can be brought to book for their incompetence in the privatisation of our great national assets.
Although many other hon. Members have spoken, I do not have time to do their speeches justice. I do not think that the debate has been as successful as we could have hoped, due to the abuse of the time for debate by three Conservative Back Benchers.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): In the light of some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the frustrations expressed earlier in the debate, it is rather ironic that the hon. Gentleman had some minutes more in which to speak than he had asked for and that I shall have nearly 10 minutes more than I had asked for, which should enable me to do more justice than would otherwise have been possible to some of the speeches. I had expected the

occasion to be rather more dominated by the Christmas spirit, although we have certainly had the full and varied diet that is associated with Christmas. I shall do my best to digest as much of it as I have time for.
One point raised in several of the early speeches, which I hoped would have been made more often, concerns today's unquestionable seasonal good news about unemployment. Seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment fell today by a record 95,800—down to just over 1.9 million, which is just under 7 per cent. of the work force. I should record that that is the largest monthly fall for 20 years, which brings unemployment down to below 2 million and the total fall since recovery began to more than 1 million.
It is right to make the point that the good news ties in with the outstandingly good report that we received yesterday from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which confirmed that unemployment in the United Kingdom is expected to decline further, and that its unemployment rate over the next two years is expected to be by far the lowest of any major European country and to remain well below the EU average. That is associated with the fact that the OECD expects the United Kingdom to be the fastest growing major European economy this year, next year and in 1998. I was grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for adverting to those points.
I turn to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point and for Basildon, partly because they referred to the recent good news and partly because they went on to give the House a fairly extensive political and geographical tour of Essex—the county in which I was born and educated and now partly represent. Despite my long association with the county, I learned even more about its geography this morning.
I am obviously tempted, because I am an Essex Member of Parliament, to join in with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point and for Basildon. I can certainly confirm that there are many tensions between the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups on Essex county council, as both my hon. Friends said, and that much of the county council's policy seems to leave a lot to be desired. I draw particular attention to some of the actions that it has taken in respect of school transport. I shall not go further down that line, because I would prefer to concentrate on joining both my hon. Friends in expressing pleasure at the grants that were announced this week by the national lottery's charities arm.
I have experienced the very great pleasure of awards being granted to the Halstead day centre, which is not in my constituency but which I know well, and the Tabor centre for physically handicapped adults, in Braintree, with which I have a quite close association. I know how much pleasure has been given by the awards.
I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point and for Basildon will forgive me for picking up on their remarks about proposals concerning the fire services in Essex. I should make it clear that, if a fire authority wants to reduce the number of its fire stations, appliances or firefighting posts, it needs the approval of the Home Secretary. So far, my right hon. and learned Friend has not received any application from Essex county council in respect of Canvey Island fire station, and I assure my


hon. Friends that, should the county council make such an application, he will take account of any representations that he receives in reaching his decision. He has obviously received some representations this morning.
I return to the more logical way of replying to the debate—going through it in order and making such comments as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) referred to something for which I have my own enthusiasm: the benefits that his part of the country has experienced from the single regeneration budget announcements earlier this week and from the capital challenge. I was aware of the Lowestoft and the Suffolk Prosper bids to which he referred, because I act as a sort of honorary Minister for eastern England when such announcements are made. Indeed, I gave interviews on them to Radio Norfolk and Radio Suffolk and know how much encouragement they will have given the area. I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to know that east Braintree's regeneration plans were the subject of a successful bid in round I of the SRB, and one can already see the transformation on the ground of what was an old industrial part of the town.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to a number of points, but spent most of his speech on poverty. His speech was not as balanced as I would have hoped, even allowing for his political perspective. He failed entirely to acknowledge that the vast majority of people in this country are better off and that, since 1979, average income has risen by more than a third, even after allowing for inflation.
In using figures of the numbers of people on income-related benefit—as if that was some measure of poverty—the hon. Member for Walsall, North did not take any account at all of something about which I know a great deal because I did much work on it while I was Secretary of State for Social Security: in many respects, those figures reflect improvements in the benefit system. There are more people on income-related benefits, due to the huge improvement in the extension of family credit, the introduction of a carers' premium, disability premiums and better and larger premiums for older pensioners. The hon. Gentleman paid no attention to those factors in what I thought was a grossly over-simplified presentation.

Mr. Winnick: Obviously we shall have to agree to disagree about that, but when I say that the bottom 10th of the population as regards income are 17 per cent. worse off in absolute terms than in 1979, is the right hon. Gentleman really telling me that he disputes that? That is an important figure, as are the other figures that I gave about people living in poverty; I notice that he has not commented on those.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman put great weight on what I regard as very over-simplified statistics, in an over-simplified presentation. I have given some pretty compelling reasons to support my belief that it was oversimplified. Obviously, we do not have time for an extended debate on the details of all the statistics, but I have made my point and I cleave to it.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was one of a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Newport, West

(Mr. Flynn) and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who mentioned parliamentary questions. I take a close interest in that matter, and as it happens, the hon. Lady, who appears to have left her seat, has recently written—

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am here.

Mr. Newton: She is a peripatetic hon. Lady, and has now appeared in what for her is a rather unusual part of the Chamber. Perhaps she is practising to be part of the gang that sits on the Opposition Bench below the Gangway. None the less, I am glad to see her in her place.
The hon. Lady, among others, made some remarks about parliamentary questions. I shall consider with great care what was said, including what the hon. Member for Newport, West said about the State Opening of Parliament. The hon. Lady has written to me recently about related matters, and I am considering those, but it may be appropriate if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster replies, because he was in charge of the exercise that led to the publication of clearer guidelines on answering parliamentary questions. Of course, I always take the hon. Lady's comments seriously.
I accept that, as the hon. Lady said, there is a tendency for a flood of questions to be answered on the last day before a recess, but I think that the hon. Lady is being unduly cynical about the reasons that she attributed for that.
Part of the problem is caused by the huge increase in the volume of parliamentary questions asked, and by the pressure from hon. Members, who sometimes table questions at a late stage before a recess, not to mention the pressure within Departments to publish answers more quickly than they otherwise would. If questions are not answered today, they cannot be answered until 13 January, and if they were left until then, Departments would be criticised for that reason instead. I hope that the hon. Lady will at least acknowledge that point.
The main thrust of the hon. Lady's speech, which was added to by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and to some degree by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, concerned railway pensions. Hon. Members will have observed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport not only heard her remarks but has come into the Chamber to hear mine, having had a word with me in the intervening period. I can therefore assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend has taken note of what she said, although I hope that he will not mind my saying that some of his comments on it were less than flattering.
I must make it clear that the position regarding British Rail pensioners' rights will be no less favourable as a result of privatisation. The new arrangements replicate as far as possible those in place under BR, and include safeguards governing the use of surpluses. It is in the nature of a scheme funded jointly by employers and employees—60 per cent. is paid by the one and 40 per cent. by the other—that, when surpluses occur, they should be shared.
I went through a similar argument in a previous capacity when I was the Minister responsible for occupational pensions. In general terms, the topic has


been the subject of endless argument over the years, and there has been fresh legislation. I suspect that were a deficit to emerge, the hon. Lady would be the first to demand that the employers find the money to fill it. There must be some balance between the two.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but the Government have written in so many exemptions for the private companies that there is no doubt that they would expect other people to support any deficit that appeared. My point is simpler than that: they are taking money to which they are not entitled, and they will make darn sure that they do not pay for any deficits.

Mr. Newton: As my time is now diminishing by the minute, I cannot say more to the hon. Lady than that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has listened to what she has said—although I must admit that I could hear him uttering dissenting noises from a sedentary position. I am sure that he will come back to her on the subject if he feels it appropriate.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) continued what I acknowledge has been a long and vigorously fought campaign on matters related to BSE. He, probably more than almost anyone else, will be aware that the House had an extensive opportunity, if not to debate the matter, at least to question the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about BSE-related matters after his statement on Monday. Clearly I cannot go over all the ground again in a short speech.
I managed to follow the hon. Gentleman's speech from afar, although I was not in the Chamber at the time, and it struck me as, to put it mildly, somewhat tendentious. Much of what he said was based on 20:20 hindsight. Whatever the genesis of the 30-months scheme may have been, it was undoubtedly supported by the National Farmers Union, partly because farmers recognised that they would not sell any beef from animals older than 30 months unless something along those lines was done.
The hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged the fact that the result of the scheme was an increase in consumer confidence in the British market substantially more rapid than occurred in many other countries in Europe, and that that brought advantage to the British industry.

Mr. Tyler: Can the right hon. Gentleman give one assurance to the House—that, if the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office wished to go through the books and see exactly what happened, the Government would co-operate fully?

Mr. Newton: Of course the Government will always co-operate with properly constituted bodies of that kind. Beyond that, these are not matters on which I can comment off the cuff on the Floor of the House this morning. None the less, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been criticised in some respects—in my view, unfairly. In relation to the BSE culling arrangements, he is in the same position as I am on a range of other matters—that of chairing a Cabinet Committee or a co-ordinating group of Ministers.

Executive responsibility remains with those Ministers. A co-ordinating arrangement is necessary, because many Departments are involved. We have four Departments responsible for agriculture, and other Departments have a strong interest in the issue too. The criticisms of my right hon. Friend, who has been assiduous and has done an effective job, are therefore unreasonable and unfair.
I am coming to the end of the time allowed, and I should comment briefly on what was said by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), without whom no debate of this nature would be complete these days. He made a traditional "Tooting speech", starting with hospitals and ending with Cyprus. I noted carefully what he said, and shall ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.
I cannot comment on everything said by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who made a characteristic speech—I mean that as a compliment, not as some sort of disguised insult. The latest information that I have on the incident in Lima, which is not as complete as I would like, is that it is possible that some British nationals are in the residence. I cannot say more at this stage. The United Kingdom is in close touch with the Peruvian authorities, and we understand that negotiations are under way. We shall of course pass on any further information at the earliest opportunity, as it emerges.
I do not think that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) would expect me to comment in detail on the points that he made in an excellent constituency speech. I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of those of my hon. Friends who are concerned with such matters in detail, just as I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to what was said by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping).
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for the words of thanks that he expressed for the action that we took to enable the Protection from Harassment Bill to extend to Northern Ireland. I take note of the fact that he took the trouble to acknowledge that; we were glad to be able to meet him in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) told me that he wanted me to take note of what he said rather than to comment extensively on it. As he also told me that he would not be able to be here for my winding-up speech, I shall make little further comment, other than to say that I have several points that I think he would find encouraging, and I shall try to communicate them to him in other ways.
Those points include the fact that a public inquiry into the statutory orders needed for the Northfleet bypass scheme will be held before mid-April 1997. I understand that there has been much frustration among the scheme's supporters about delays in progress on that important matter. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, those delays have not been of the Government's making.
Because of the slightly unexpected additional time that I had, I have been able to comment on almost every speech. I hope that my comments will enable hon. Members to depart at least slightly happier than when they arrived and that they all, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have the sort of relaxed and enjoyable Christmas that I am sure they all—or at least some of them—deserve.

Nigeria

Mr. Keith Hill: I thank the Minister for agreeing to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who has a long record of support for the Nigerian democratic movement, with especially close links to the Nigerian Organisation for Democracy with Integrity. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who has led Labour's campaign against the Nigerian military dictatorship.
Three and a half years ago, on Saturday 12 June 1993, in a jungle clearing south of Benin City, I observed the people of the township of Nikrogha voting in the Nigerian presidential election. Voting was orderly and conducted in a spirit of optimism, and procedures were entirely correct. On the same day, 14 million other Nigerians voted. The turnout was variable, but, as hundreds of international observers and thousands of Nigerian election monitors universally reported, the vote was free and fair.
Chief Moshood Abiola was the unquestionable democratic winner, with majorities across all regions—a genuinely unifying and national mandate for his presidency. We are all familiar with the sequence of events that followed: the annulment of the elections by the then military dictator, Babangida, to nationwide protests; and the assumption of power shortly afterwards by the current military dictator, Abacha, who proceeded to ban political parties, dismantle the existing democratic structures—including state and federal legislatures—and replace civilian state governors with military administrators.
Resistance to the military regime continued. In May 1994, the National Democratic Coalition, NADECO, was created. Soon afterwards, the national assembly reconvened to declare the Abacha Government illegal. In June 1994, Abiola returned to claim his presidency. His arrest on 23 June provoked nationwide strikes led by petroleum workers. In associated demonstrations, hundreds of people were gunned down. Abiola and Frank Ovie Kokori, the leader of the petroleum workers, have remained in detention since 1994.
Bizarrely, even the so-called constitutional conference, set up by Abacha to implement his transition programme and largely appointed by the military, voted in December to end military rule by 1 January 1996, a recommendation that was subsequently reversed after the arrest of the originator of the proposal, Shehu Musa Yar'adua. Wherever and whenever they have had the opportunity, Nigerians have always chosen the path of democracy. It is our duty as democrats to support them in that demand.
Just over a year ago, the world was horrified by the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders in an act described by our Prime Minister as judicial murder. Nineteen Ogonis remain on trial for murder in connection with the same facts and before the same so-called civil disturbances special tribunal that convicted Saro-Wiwa and his co-defendants. That execution is the most extreme and best-known example of the military regime's open contempt for human rights.
The authorities in Nigeria continue to resort to arbitrary detention of prisoners of conscience, ignoring court orders whenever it suits them. Political prisoners continue to face

the prospect of unfair trials by special tribunals with the power to impose the death sentence. Detainees continue to be denied access to lawyers, families and essential medical treatment. There are continuing allegations of extra-judicial executions by Nigerian law enforcement officials.
In June and July 1995, former Head of State General Olusegun Obasanjo, Shehu Musa Yar'adua, and 41 other individuals were tried in secret before a military tribunal on charges of plotting a coup against the military Government. They were denied legal representation of their choice, and there was no appeal procedure. Many Nigerians believe that the charges were simply a device to remove military officers and others who posed a threat Abacha's hold on power.
Also swept up in the charges were Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, the chairman of the Campaign for Democracy, and four journalists—Christine Anyanwu, Kunle Ajibade, George Mbah, and Ben Charles Obi—whose guilt consisted solely of publishing articles commenting on the trial. Amnesty International believes that all the so-called coup plotters are prisoners of conscience.
There is a strong suspicion that the regime is resorting to political assassination to supplement its manipulation of the judicial system. In October 1995, Pa Alfred Rewane, a major supporter of the National Democratic Coalition, was shot dead in Lagos in a hail of bullets. In early 1996, Alex Ibru, publisher of the liberal newspaper The Guardian, was the subject of an attempted assassination.
On 4 June 1996, Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, senior wife of Chief Abiola and the principal campaigner on her husband's behalf, was murdered in Lagos, in circumstances that have led many to fear that her assassination may have been carried out by Government agents, acting with or without the knowledge of the central authorities. The Government have failed to initiate an immediate, thorough and impartial investigation of her killing.
Apologists for the regime sometimes claim that dissidence is not widespread in Nigeria, and that there is little evidence of internal dissent. It has been aptly remarked that, if dissent is limited, it is the silence of the graveyard. Meanwhile, the Abacha regime has announced its own leisurely programme of transition to democracy, designed to culminate in the swearing in of a newly elected president on 1 October 1998. The programme bears an uncanny resemblance to the abortive Babangida transition programme, and has already been marked by a travesty of local government elections earlier this year and a process of party formation in which none of the parties have managed to meet the Government guidelines.
We cannot leave the transition to democracy in the hands of the military junta. The regime has no democratic legitimacy, and the transition to democracy can have no credibility unless it is carried out in a climate of genuine democratic participation and observation of human rights.
The demands on the regime are clear: the release of all political prisoners and credible guarantees that free and fair elections will go ahead as soon as possible, and well before the proposed date of 1998. It is equally clear that exhortation alone will not persuade the generals. The international community will have to ratchet up its pressure on the Nigerian regime to secure those


objectives. That will mean readiness to deploy sanctions beyond those already applied in the aftermath of the Ken Saro-Wiwa execution last November.
The extra sanctions have been well ventilated and were recommended for consideration by the United Stares, the European Union and the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group after its second meeting in April this year. It recommended a ban on air links and additional economic measures, including the freezing of the financial assets and bank accounts in foreign countries of members of the regime and their families. They have been backed by members of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, such as New Zealand and Jamaica, and have been unilaterally imposed by Canada. The virtue of those measures is that they target members of the regime and the elites that sustain it, without increasing the suffering of the population in general.
Britain's historic and cultural links with Nigeria, not least our key role in its economy, make it natural that we should take the lead in renewed international pressure against the regime. The British Government must use their status as the foremost partner in the Commonwealth to co-ordinate a clear and consistent strategy against Abacha and his cohorts. We have the machinery in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, of which we are a member, to enable us to act now.
There is widespread suspicion that Britain has so far exerted its influence to retard effective international action against the generals. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that that is not so. In any case, we do not have long to wait for the election of a Labour Government, who will be whole-heartedly committed to the restoration of human rights and democracy in Nigeria.

Mr. John Fraser: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) for allowing me a few moments to intervene.
We are both sponsors of the Nigerian Organisation for Democracy with Integrity, which is based in the United Kingdom. It is not the only organisation in Britain, the United States or in other countries outside Nigeria that is campaigning vigorously for the restoration of respect for human rights and public integrity in that country, hope that the Nigerian authorities are aware of the depth of feeling about conditions in that country, not just among Nigerians in that country but among those abroad and their friends and allies, among whom I hope that we can number everyone in the House today.
It is a tragedy that Nigeria should be saddled with a dictatorship, violence and corruption, not least because of its great natural resources of oil and in agriculture. The natural appetite of its people for education means that they are well adapted to move forward in the world, so it is also a tragedy that a country that should be leading Africa is so far down the league and kept there by the corruption of its current leaders and their dictatorial system.
In common with my hon. Friend, I ask for an announcement from the Government to the effect that further pressure will be applied by the international community, not least by the Commonwealth, to encourage a return to civilian rule and the restoration of respect for human rights and public integrity. The truth is that

democracy will not work successfully in Nigeria unless its society is free of corruption and respects public institutions and the rights of its ordinary people.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the time has come to intensify those pressures. One of the most dramatic reasons for that, although not the only one, was supplied to me in a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department about constituents, in which he spoke of
concerns about the lack of progress towards civilian democratic rule for Nigeria, and the human rights record there, including the appalling executions of Ken Saro-Wiwa, a minority rights activist, and eight of his associates following a flawed judicial process.
Those are not my words, but those of a Home Office Minister, yet nothing has been done to redeem the situation created by the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his fellow Ogonis. No apology has been forthcoming. Nineteen other members of the Ogoni tribe have been kept in detention without trial since 1994. When one recalls what happened to Ken Saro-Wiwa, perhaps we should not press for those people to be brought to trial. We should, however, argue that those people, who have been kept imprisoned without trial for two years and have not been subject to any proper judicial process, should be released.
The second reason for intensifying our pressure on Nigeria is General Abacha's attitude. Although he says that he wants a transition to civilian rule and wants to encourage the creation of political parties, they are nothing more than sweetheart parties, because the only effective opposition there is the Nigerian Democratic Coalition—NADECO. When its representatives campaign, however, their offices are raided, they are arrested, and they are not allowed to participate in elections.
As my hon. Friend said, political assassinations continue, and I can add to his list the death of Dr. Shola Adeshola, who was recently killed by a car bomb when driving. That bomb was believed to be intended for his brother, who is a leading member of NADECO in Nigeria.
No political prisoners have been released, and the 2,000 Ogoni people who were dispersed from the River State have not been encouraged to return to it. The wasteland created as a result of oil exploitation has not benefited from any major environmental rehabilitation. The only plan seems to be to try to civilianise the dictatorship rather than return Nigeria to a democracy.
The time has come for the international community to apply more pressure and to turn the screw. Nigeria is tragically falling behind because of the regime that has been allowed to continue there. We have many Nigerian friends in this country, and we hope to hear the Minister announce plans to intensify pressure to ensure that the restoration of respect for human rights and democracy will at long last come about.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. Liam Fox): I congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on obtaining the debate, and I welcome the fact that he chose such an important topic. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) not only for his contribution, but for his extreme courtesy in getting his timing so impeccably correct.
I should like to start by discussing the actions of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which, if the House will forgive me, I will refer to as CMAG for the rest of the debate.
The group's representatives visited Nigeria on 18 to 20 November to continue their assessment of Nigeria's adherence to the Harare principles of good governance, as mandated by the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Auckland last year. I remind the House exactly of the Harare principles, which place particular emphasis on
the protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth"—
which are defined as democracy; democratic processes and institutions; the rule of law and the independence of judiciary; just and honest government; and fundamental human rights. The hon. Members spoke about all those issues.
My right hon. Friend Baroness Chalker represented the United Kingdom at that meeting, and, far from retarding progress on those issues, she has been an important member of the group, and represents the Government and the country in pushing the process forward. I know that her commitment to reform in Nigeria is without doubt.
Sadly, the Canadian delegation was unable to participate in the visit, as Nigeria refused to issue visas to two security officers who were due to travel with the Canadian Minister. That is indicative of the sort of problem that we still face in our current negotiations.
I should also report that the Nigerians pressed once again, not surprisingly, for Nigeria's suspension from the Commonwealth to be rescinded; for CMAG to support the transitional programme; for all sanctions to be lifted; and for the resumption of high-level dialogue. There are quite a few conditions that must be met before that can be achieved.
In addition to the Nigerian delegation, CMAG met representatives of the National Electoral Commission and the transitional committees, as well as the leaders of the five recently registered political parties, traditional rulers and the chairman of the Nigerian Human Rights Commission. The group also had an audience with General Abacha, but was not able to see Chief Abiola, General Obasanjo or any other political prisoners. Baroness Chalker met representatives of the human rights and pro-democracy groups in the margins of the visit.
I am pleased to report that the Nigerians released three high-profile political prisoners during the visit: Femi Falana, Gani Fawehinmi and Femi Aborishade. Like CMAG, I welcome their release, but I want to make it clear to the House that is not nearly enough. The group pressed for the prompt restoration of accountable civilian government; the immediate release of all political prisoners, including Chief Abiola; the rapid resolution of the case of the 19 Ogonis who face the same charges as Ken Saro-Wiwa and his associates; and a review of prison conditions. All those conditions must be met.
The Nigerians were questioned in detail about the implementation of the transition timetable, including the delay in promulgating the draft constitution and the opportunities for unregistered parties to participate in the process, which we regard as an important, not a nominal,

part of any proper democratic process. In addition, they were questioned about the mechanisms for conducting the local elections that are scheduled to take place this month.
The Nigerians assured the group that the transition was on track, although they said, in their terms, that they did not believe that it was logistically possible to conduct the local elections this month. If there are logistical reasons for their not being carried out this month, we hope that they are carried out as soon as is practicably possible, because it is not acceptable for logistics to be given as a reason for a delay in implementing proper democratic reforms.
The majority of those to whom CMAG spoke, both those in the Government and others, expressed confidence in the transition process. The group was also informed that most of the politicians whose associations had not registered in September had now joined one of the five registered parties.
The group also expressed its deep concern about the lack of respect for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, and the use of rule by decree, which concentrates power in the hands of the regime. The group requested clarification on several decrees that impinged on fundamental rights. Not surprisingly, the Nigerian side responded only that rule by decree was not unusual in military regimes. That practice must change.
CMAG made it clear to the Nigerian authorities that it expects the Ogoni Nineteen to be released or brought before a properly constituted court that respects the basic legal rights of the defendant. It also pointed out that any further trials by the same tribunal that tried Ken Saro-Wiwa would provoke a strong international reaction. The group also called again for the Nigerians to receive and to co-operate fully with the visit by the two United Nations Commission on Human Rights thematic rapporteurs.
The hon. Member for Streatham mentioned Amnesty International's recent report. The Government welcome that report and the 10-point programme for human rights reform in Nigeria. Those useful documents were circulated to all members of CMAG before the visit. The group handed a copy of both documents to the Nigerians in Abuja for their urgent attention and, more important, for their response, which we await with interest.
What will be the next steps? CMAG will meet again in the new year to consider the material it received during the visit, and to agree on next steps in preparation for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh next October. We hope that that meeting will also hear submissions from key Nigerian opposition groups in exile and relevant international non-governmental organisations.
We shall be working towards a fair assessment that reflects the wide range of views that CMAG has heard since it began its assessment last December. It is too early to comment on CMAG's recommendations for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting next year, but it is clear that Nigeria is still in breach of the principles set out in the Harare declaration, and Nigeria's suspension will have to be considered in that context.
I am pleased to inform the House that the United Kingdom co-sponsored another critical resolution that was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 12 December. The resolution criticises Nigeria's human rights record, and calls on it to implement all the recommendations contained the UN fact-finding mission's report.
The resolution also recognises the important work being done by CMAG, and calls for continued co-operation between the Commonwealth and the United Nations. Such co-operation is an issue that is and should be important to the entire international community. The greater the level of co-operation between the UN, CMAG, the European Union and individual Governments, the better. The European Union has rolled over its common position on Nigeria, which means that all EU measures introduced at the end of last year remain firmly in place.
All those decisions combine to send a clear message to the Nigerians that the international community remains resolved and is working together to keep up the pressure on Abacha and his regime to restore human rights and democracy.
The hon. Gentleman asked several questions about where we go from here, and I should like to take those one by one. First, there is the question of further Commonwealth sanctions. The Commonwealth has already taken the significant step of suspending Nigeria's membership of the association. No other organisation has taken that step, so it is important in itself.
CMAG's mandate is to assess Nigeria's adherence to the Harare principles and to make recommendations to the Commonwealth Heads of Government—CMAG is not a sanction-making body. The April package of measures remains on the table, and CMAG has not yet recommended its implementation to the Heads of Government, but we await any decision on that.
The United Kingdom, together with the European Union, has had measures in place since July 1993, and they were reinforced by adoption measures by means of EU common positions on 20 November 1995 and 4 December 1995. Our aim is to identify carefully targeted measures that will be effective and send a clear signal of our concerns to the regime without wrecking the Nigerian economy, and without imposing any more hardship on its 100 million people than is required to achieve our political objectives.

Mr. Keith Hill: indicated assent.

Dr. Fox: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding—he understands that it is most difficult to achieve the right balance when any form of sanction is being used to try to achieve political ends.
The full list of EU measures is now suspension of non-essential high-level visits in both directions; suspension of military training; an EU-wide arms ban; visa restrictions; the suspension of development co-operation except for projects in support of human rights and democracy and those concentrating on poverty alleviation; the withdrawal of all military personnel attached to diplomatic representations of EU member

states in Nigeria and the expulsion of military personnel attached to Nigerian diplomatic representations in member states; and an interruption of sporting contacts through the denial of visas for official delegations and national teams.
We have noted calls for further economic sanctions, including the severing of trade links, an oil embargo and an assets freeze. In our view, those would require a UN Security Council resolution to be effective, and an oil embargo would, in addition, have to be implemented through a naval blockade. We judge such sanctions to be, in practice, unachievable at present.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned an air links ban, but, again, we believe that that would be effective only if applied unanimously by the whole international community. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that the UK is not prepared to support an air links ban unless it is supported by all its European and Commonwealth partners.
The issue of defence exports is often raised. On 11 November 1995, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a full UK arms embargo against the Nigerian military, and on 20 November the European Union adopted a common position that extended measures in force since June 1993 to include a full EU-wide arms ban. The restrictions now in place include all military, security and paramilitary goods and arms, ammunition and related material. The rules do not distinguish between items intended for the military and those intended for the police; nor will any exception be allowed for international peacekeeping operations in which the Nigerians might be involved. Sometimes there is confusion on that last point.
I should like to speak on one subject that the hon. Gentleman did not mention—our position on aid and the UK aid programme. Development co-operation is suspended, except for projects in support of human rights and democracy and those concentrating on poverty alleviation.
The UK adheres strictly to the EU common position, being confined to projects bringing direct benefits to poor Nigerians in health, population, water, basic education and small-scale agriculture, using non-military channels such as non-government organisations. Our bilateral expenditure has inevitably dropped from £12 million in 1992–93 to £4.8 million in 1995–96, but it is starting to increase again this year as our new sector programmes develop.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Streatham for initiating the debate and giving me the chance to clarify some of the points that he raised. The Government take the issue extremely seriously. The present Conservative Government are fully committed to democracy, the rule of law, human rights and sustainable development for all the peoples of Nigeria.

Ecclesiastical Heritage

1 pm

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak briefly about one of my favourite subjects. Almost the first thing that I did when I entered the House was to begin moves to introduce a Bill to make public funds available for ecclesiastical buildings in use, because until 1977 they were not.
I am delighted that my campaign met with some success. I joined and was joined by many others. For almost 20 years, the Church of England especially has had cause to be grateful for the funds that have come its way. I say that to emphasise the fact that this is not a carping speech. I hope that I shall say some important things about the preservation of England's churches and cathedrals. I mean no insult to anyone, present or not present, by concentrating on Church of England buildings, because the problem of historic churches is essentially a Church of England problem.
The Church of England has about 16,000 churches, about 13,000 of which are listed buildings, and of course it has 42 cathedrals. Forty per cent. of grade 1 listed buildings in England are ecclesiastical.
It is an appropriate time to talk about churches and cathedrals, to which I hope people throughout the country will flock next Wednesday, which is Christmas day. They will be fuller then than probably at any other time of the year—fuller than most of them will be at Easter. That draws attention to the use of our places of worship.
Many of those who do not choose to go to church next week nevertheless recognise the central importance of the church. In most towns and villages, the church is the most important public building, almost always the most outstanding architecturally and the one with the most interesting history. If one believes, as I do, that one comes closest to the soul and the spirit of a nation in its historic buildings, one recognises the central importance of our churches and cathedrals.
I am glad to see my friend, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in the Chamber. I apologise to him for the fact that I shall not speak about Scottish churches today, but he takes a well-informed interest in all heritage matters and it is always good to see him in our debates.
A month ago today, the Archbishop of Canterbury launched an initiative with a press conference at Lambeth palace. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage is well aware of that. I am glad that he will reply to the debate; he is one of my oldest friends in the House, and no one could question his commitment to the civilised things of life.
The archbishop's initiative, which is encapsulated in the document that I hold in my hand, entitled "Developing the Partnership between Church and State over the Ecclesiastical Heritage", is concerned with developing and strengthening that partnership. I emphasise the word "partnership". After all, we are speaking of our national, established Church—the Church whose services and ministrations are available for every man, woman and child in England, and which therefore has enormously important commitments of mission and worship.
No sensible cleric regards our great, rich legacy of historic churches as anything other than a wonderful asset. One has only to think of some of one's favourite churches

to recognise the transcendant beauty of such buildings. I think of my native Lincolnshire, which I left many years ago: of churches as glorious as Louth, Boston and Stow and of little gems such as Snarford. In my adopted county of Staffordshire, in the diocese of Lichfield, I think especially of my parish church at Enville, where I am churchwarden and where, during the past few years, we have struggled to raise about £110,000 to maintain our church.
That says it all, in a way. We have a population of fewer than 400. There is a similar number on the electoral roll. We have received, and are grateful for, state aid, and we have received aid from the Historic Churches Preservation Trust, of which I happen to be a trustee. Nevertheless, we have had to raise a very large sum ourselves. We have done it, and it has brought the community together. We welcomed the challenge, but we would not welcome another one next year because there is a limit to the amount of money that small communities can raise, and a recognition of that is at the heart of the archbishop's commendable initiative.
It is calculated that it costs about £100 million a year to maintain the fabric of the churches and cathedrals of the Church of England. About 75 per cent. of that comes from the Church and from voluntary giving and fund raising, and 25 per cent. comes from grant and lottery money. Welcome as grants are, the sum received from English Heritage is about £11 million—about £5 million less than the VAT that the Church pays on repairs. Every Minister should ponder that figure.
If we are to continue to be regarded as a civilised nation, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the greatest buildings in our country are properly maintained. At the moment, most of our churches and cathedrals are in good repair. As the archbishop said when he launched his document a month ago, in very many cases they have never been in better repair. Yet, looking into the next century and beyond, one must recognise that the continuing burden will be too much for the Church and congregations effectively to discharge unless more help is given.
Today, I am appealing for a recognition of that fact, and of other facts too. The lottery money is certainly welcome, although there are certain reservations about it in Church quarters—reservations that I can well understand. Still, the money has been welcomed by the Archbishop and by those who have the care of our churches, but it is not enough. We are, after all, asking for only a very small sum of money. The budget of English Heritage is being cut. We need more funding from that source, but English Heritage cannot provide more core funding if its resources are being cut.
The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for National Heritage and other Ministers have said repeatedly that the lottery money is regarded as additional to Government money, stressing time and again that it is never to be seen as a substitute for Government funding, but it is becoming a substitute. Later today we shall have an opportunity to debate the Second Reading of the National Heritage Bill, and if I am fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye, I may be able to develop some of those arguments then. For now, I merely put down a marker. Ministers must face up to the facts of Government funding; we need more core funding from English Heritage.
We also need money to compensate for the £16 million that the Church pays out in VAT. Perhaps it will be possible to negotiate with Brussels a better rate of VAT on repairs to listed buildings throughout the Community. Perhaps also we might take another look at differing rates of VAT in this country. After all, by decision of the House, the VAT rate on fuel is already 8 per cent. Why not an 8 per cent. rate in this case too?
We also need more money for the Churches Conservation Trust, the body that used to be called the Redundant Churches Fund, which maintains the fabric of churches that are no longer regularly used for worship but are of architectural or historic importance. Those churches, vested in Church and state, will need, we calculate, about £3.3 million more if they are to be effectively maintained over the next three years. The same money could buy only a very small bit of a bypass or motorway.
Next year, we shall commemorate the 1,400th anniversary of the arrival of St. Augustine, in 597. Two years after that, we shall begin to celebrate the millennium. People often forget when they talk glibly of the millennium that it is the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of our Lord. There is surely no more fitting way to commemorate the millennium than by guaranteeing the churches and cathedrals of this land the necessary funding to take them through to the next century and beyond.
I am talking about a matter of £5 million a year extra; that would take care of most of the points mentioned by the Archbishop in his press conference. Set in the national context, that is a tiny sum, yet it will ensure that some of the greatest buildings, not just in this country but in Europe, are secure for the future. That is what the debate is all about: making sure that our churches and cathedrals remain the focal points of our towns and villages and of many a wonderful rural landscape. Although congregations will still have a responsibility, they will be able to devote more energy and resources to the other tasks confronting the Church. Bearing in mind the state of our society today, I submit that there never was a time when there was more need for the Christian message to be heeded.
I ask the Minister once again to heed my plea today. I hope that he will not just tell me what has already been done, because I recognise that with gratitude. I hope that he will tell me that more is going to be done and that it is recognised that more must be done if we are to keep faith with our Christian heritage.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on his success in securing this short debate. He brings to our heritage, especially our ecclesiastic heritage, not just immense expertise but the sort of passionate commitment that has been on display again this morning. I shall try to explain what can be done and how matters can be taken forward, but, especially for the sake of those who will read the debate, I should also like to put the subject in context by touching on what has already been done. I understand, nevertheless, that my hon. Friend wants to take matters beyond that.
I certainly agree that historic religious buildings stand at the very heart of our national heritage. As my hon. Friend said, it is estimated that nearly 15,000 listed

buildings are in religious use, 13,000 of them churches of the Church of England. Of the buildings listed grade I—the top grade, representing only 2 per cent. of all listed buildings—well over a third are Anglican parish churches.
The importance of the ecclesiastical heritage lies not merely in its prodigious quantity but in its astonishing richness and diversity. It reflects every phase in the history of architecture from Saxon times up to the present century. It encompasses buildings of every size and style, from tiny mediaeval churches in remote countryside areas to huge Victorian masterpieces in the inner cities; from nonconformist chapels to the great Anglican cathedrals. It offers countless examples of artistic and technical achievement, and it attracts millions of visitors every year from home and abroad.
Moreover, we appreciate those buildings for more than their intrinsic architectural and artistic qualities. We value the unique contribution that they make to the appearance of the countryside and the townscape. At a deeper level, we are aware of their role in the development of communities and of the nation. We acknowledge their significance as enduring symbols of religious faith through the centuries.
The Government are totally committed to preserving the ecclesiastical heritage in all its fullness. That commitment extends to the historic buildings of all religious denominations and faiths. I well recognise, however, that in initiating this debate my hon. Friend has a particular concern for the buildings of the Church of England. I shall therefore concentrate on that aspect when responding to him.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it has long been accepted that care of the Church of England's heritage involves a partnership between the Church itself and the state. Such a partnership has in fact existed for many years, and has achieved remarkable results. The credit for that can be shared equally between both partners. The Church of England has an excellent record in looking after its historic buildings. I readily accept that caring for those buildings and their contents is a heavy responsibility, much of which must be borne by churchgoers themselves.
Therefore, I am very glad to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those individual congregations who do so much to preserve that outstanding part of the nation's heritage, not least my hon. Friend's village church. For a population of 400 to raise more than £100,000 is an achievement, and I can see why my hon. Friend would not like to go through the process again next year. I congratulate him, in his role as church warden, and the other members of the congregation on that remarkable achievement.
For the past 20 years, Government funding has been available to assist with the repair and maintenance of historic church buildings. Such funding is today channelled through English Heritage. During the past five years, English Heritage has provided grant funding of £61.4 million for repairs to churches and cathedrals, the vast majority of them Anglican. During the current financial year, English Heritage expects to make some 300 grant offers, at a total value of £13 million, for church and cathedral repair schemes. Some 80 per cent. of the grants will be for Anglican buildings. Normally, only churches listed grade 1 or grade 2-star are eligible, but all applications, including those for grade 2 churches, are considered on their merits. The criteria for the award of


grant are the historic importance of the building, the urgency of the proposed repairs, and the need for financial support.
The national lottery has now firmly established itself as a further key instrument for securing the future of the ecclesiastical heritage. Already, the heritage lottery fund has made 124 grant awards, totalling £14.5 million, for schemes relating to religious buildings. I understand that 105 of those awards have been for Anglican churches. Unlike English Heritage grants, which are geared towards the maintenance and repair of the fabric of historic churches, lottery funding is able to support a much wider range of projects. For example, a considerable number of lottery awards have been made for the restoration of church monuments, organs and bells. A further important difference is that lottery funding can be offered for unlisted churches in conservation areas and redundant churches.
As the House may be aware, in October, the heritage lottery fund and English Heritage launched an important new joint scheme for funding repairs to churches in use. That will pool lottery and English Heritage resources to create one source of funding. English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund have each set aside £10 million for the scheme during its first year. That will enable available resources to be deployed more effectively and to reach a wider range of church buildings, thereby ensuring that more local communities benefit from lottery grants.
The scheme offers a simplified one-stop application process and will allow English Heritage and the heritage lottery fund to deal with applications more efficiently and quickly. It will provide them with a clearer overall picture of the requirements of churches, thus allowing them to assess individual needs more accurately and to target grants more effectively, but I should emphasise that church organisations or congregations that do not wish to seek lottery funding on moral grounds will still be free to apply only for English Heritage support.
A further expression of the partnership between Church and state is the continued commitment on both sides to the support of the Churches Conservation Trust. The trust is devoted to the repair and maintenance of outstanding Anglican churches that are no longer required for pastoral purposes and for which no suitable alternative use can be found. There are currently more than 300 churches in the care of the trust. Since 1995, the trust has been fortunate to have my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) as its chairman.
The major financial supporter of the Churches Conservation Trust are the Government, who contribute 70 per cent. of the trust's costs, the Church Commissioners providing the remaining 30 per cent. Over the three years from 1994 to 1997, financial provision for the trust has totalled £10.3 million, of which £7.2 million has come from the Government and £3.1 million from the Church Commissioners. Funding for the period 1997 to 2000 has been provisionally agreed at £10.6 million, comprising £7.4 million from the Government and £3.2 million from the Church Commissioners.
The level of funding is intended to enable the trust to keep its churches in a decent state of repair and to allow it to take on a limited number of additional churches. If

the trust did not exist, many of those outstanding historic churches would face neglect, damaging alterations or even demolition. As it is, the buildings are maintained in sound condition, remain a focus in their localities and are accessible to the public.
I will also mention the Government's support for the work of the Historic Chapels Trust. The trust was set up in 1993 to acquire outstanding non-Anglican religious buildings—Roman Catholic churches, nonconformist chapels, synagogues and so on—which are no longer needed for worship. In effect, the trust aims to perform for such buildings a similar role to that undertaken by the Churches Conservation Trust.
The establishment of the Historic Chapels Trust was aided by financial support from the Government. The trust is currently funded via English Heritage grant and through private sponsorship. My Department is at present considering an application from the trust for financial support from the heritage grant fund. So far, the trust has acquired six buildings and is negotiating to acquire eight more.
Looking ahead, I should draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that financial support will be available to the churches for the role that we anticipate that they will play in celebrating the new millennium. All the Christian churches have a potentially vital contribution to make in what is, at its heart, a year of religious significance—the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Christ. The Government are liaising closely with all the churches on how the spiritual aspects of the millennium can be reflected in plans for marking the occasion. In preparation, many historic Anglican churches will benefit from grants worth more than £5 million approved by the Millennium Commission for restoring belfries and casting new bells, for a nationwide peal of church bells to ring in the new millennium.
My hon. Friend mentioned the recently published Church of England document "Developing the Partnership between Church and State over the Ecclesiastical Heritage". Let me say at once that the Government warmly welcome the document. As I have already said, the existing Church and state partnership has already achieved a great deal. However, we are ready to discuss new ways in which the partnership can be developed and strengthened. From what my hon. Friend said in his speech, he might like to use his fertile imagination and experience to suggest ways in which that might be done.
There is much in the Church's document with which we whole-heartedly agree. The financial difficulties and pressures currently facing the Church of England are well understood by the Government. I have to say, too, that there are also constraints on the state side. The continuing need to control public expenditure means that heritage spending programmes are likely to remain under pressure for the foreseeable future. None the less, the Government are ready to work with the Church in exploring other possible sources of funding for the ecclesiastical heritage—for example, from Europe. We are also willing to consider what steps can be taken to improve co-ordination between all the Government and non-Government agencies with a potential role.
His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury has already had discussions on the issues with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and my noble Friend the


Minister for Tourism. As the next step, officials in my Department will hold discussions with the General Synod to explore the issues raised in the document in detail, identify the constraints on each side and explore possible new options.
Without prejudice to the outcome of the discussions, it may be helpful if I make a couple of observations in response to some comments made in the Church's document. The first is the concern that the Government have gone back on their commitment to the additionality of lottery funding. The document urges that English Heritage funding should not be reduced to take account of the advent of the lottery. I can assure the House that the Government stand by their commitment to the additionality of lottery funding and that we therefore have no intention of reducing core funding programmes to take account of awards from the lottery.
That commitment does not mean that the Government can set aside the constraints on public expenditure to which I have already referred. None the less, I hope hon. Members will have found some encouragement in our recent decision to grant an additional £1.8 million to English Heritage in 1997–98, which means that funding for next year will be substantially maintained at this year's level. It is of course for English Heritage to decide how best to allocate the available resources across all its activities.
The second point relates to the claim—as my hon. Friend mentioned—that, in 1993, VAT on churches and cathedrals repairs cost the Church about £16 million, far more than it receives in English Heritage grants. The document calls for the Government to press the European Commission to add listed building repairs to the categories of services eligible for reduced rates of VAT at national discretion, as alterations already are. My hon. Friend will know that, as a tax matter, this is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. While we have no particular reason to doubt the Church of England's £16 million figure on the amount of VAT paid, I have to say that the way VAT is collected does not allow Customs and Excise to calculate the amount of VAT paid on churches or on listed buildings.
Furthermore, the VAT directive that requires repairs to be taxed at the full 17.5 per cent. is about to be reviewed. Any decision on whether to increase the scope of the list of goods and services to which a reduced rate of VAT may be applied would be taken by the Finance Ministers of all member states. It is currently the UK Government's policy to have a single rate of VAT at 17.5 per cent., but to retain for the present the existing zero rates, which have been agreed with our EU partners.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important matter. I hope that hon. Members will have been reassured about the Government's continuing commitment to the preservation of our ecclesiastical heritage. We look forward to working closely with the Church of England and other denominations and faiths in pursuit of that objective.

East London and the City Health Authority

Mr. Nigel Spearing: This debate should not be necessary. Earlier this year, we debated the circumstances of East London and the City district health authority, partly because of the closure of Bart's and the 30 per cent. reduction in the number of beds planned for the three east London boroughs: Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham. They are three of the neediest boroughs in the country, but they do not lack in human spirit and initiative.
The base problem involves capitation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) wishes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and he may pursue that point further. The money allocated to the authority in order to purchase health facilities from the providers is tied to a national formula that is clearly inadequate. The situation has worsened in the past few years: we would have had £50 million more per year, but for an adjustment in the capitation formula that does not take account of the needs of people coming to the borough from other parts of the world, the age of the population and the health needs of the area. In the same period, I am told that Surrey received an increase of £30 million as a result of the same adjustment. That capitation formula must be altered again.
Recently, we have faced an even bigger, visible—if not financial—anomaly: the way in which psychiatric need is met. We all know about the scandalous difficulties in the mental health service. However, we forget that, when people go to court, are found incapable of pleading properly and are not sentenced, they pass from the responsibility of the Home Office to that of the health service. In my district, there are about 60 or 65 persons of that ilk or those who have been released from prison, upon whom the health service spends some £7 million. We believe that that funding should be provided centrally, as few health districts elsewhere carry that sort of load—I believe that it is only about half a dozen.
We aim at least to sustain health service delivery in the area. Despite claims in the Budget and the Prime Minister's comments in Prime Minister's questions yesterday, we cannot do so. On 2 December, I asked the Secretary of State for Health—who was boasting about increases in health service expenditure—about the situation in east London. He replied:
The authority also has bids for other funds, which are currently being considered".—[Official Report, 2 December 1996; Vol. 286, c. 686.]
We need those funds because we must sustain existing services with an £18 million shortfall in delivery. The authority has announced cuts of £40 million. We need that additional £18 million—or as much as the Government can supply through the bids. I received a written reply yesterday about the bids for health authorities, which are described as undergoing structural or strategic change. My health authority is undergoing structural change in respect of possible closures, to which I shall refer in a moment.
When Bart's closed, we were told that we would have a new hospital at Homerton. A few weeks ago, the authority published the option of closing Homerton or Newham general hospital—two major hospitals in east London. It was forced to dismiss that option as unfeasible, but it must


still find the equivalent savings. Newham is experiencing difficulties because it maintains a huge accident and emergency facility—although I understand that it costs less per head of population than many similar facilities elsewhere. A and E needs must be met by relocating facilities and resources from elsewhere in the hospital.
We are facing extensive cuts. The authority has told general practitioners that they must be more careful about hospital admissions—it employs bureaucratic terms such as "gatekeeping" or "readjustment of entry". GPs have been told that out-patients will not be seen until after April 1997 and that waiting times may increase to 18 months. There will be a reduction in provider contracts of 7,500 bed days, which means less provision to meet consistently growing needs.
There are 40 vacancies among the estimated 400 GP posts in the area. GPs are finding the load difficult to bear and thus are less enthusiastic about their perceived role. Why should they stay in east London, when the prevailing conditions do not allow them to do their jobs as professionals? As a result of the cuts, GPs are being asked to recommend fewer people for admission to hospital. They are then required to provide more at-home care when people are released from hospital, under a policy of "fewer in and quicker out". At the same time as they are providing increased care on the ground, they are told to expect redundancies among practice nursing staff and general domiciliary services. Local authority social services also have difficulty meeting existing need.
The need is so great that the local medical committee—a statutory body—took the unusual step of writing to the Secretary of State. It was not alone: it was joined by three voluntary borough forums of general practitioners, who work co-operatively together and play an essential part in the structure. Some 200 signed the letter that was sent to the Secretary of State on 5 November. As of yesterday, I understand that they have received no reply or acknowledgment of the letter. That is astonishing—it may be the result of delayering in the civil service; I do not know. It is all the more remarkable because, having received no reply, the group then sent a letter to The Times outlining the problems that they face, which was published on 10 December, but they still received no reply.
I do not know whether officers of the Department of Health read The Times or whether the Minister has been briefed about the matter—perhaps he will tell us today when he replies to the debate. In addition, BBC South-East broadcast a 30-minute television programme on 28 November highlighting the plight of the people of east London and the ineffective funding of their health services. I presume that the Department of Health knows about that.
Not only are the professionals in difficulty, but there is pressure on the voluntary organisations. In east London—like everywhere else—there is great concern for those who are ill, who need constant care and who may turn to hostels or to similar organisations to meet their needs. The Newham Care and Repair service, which allows people to be discharged from hospital and returned to their home sooner than might occur otherwise, is to be cut. The elderly derive particular benefit from the service, as their conditions often necessitate structural adjustments in the

home and they may require daily care and visits. It is proposed to cut that service—although decisions are still up in the air in view of the £18 million shortfall.
The organisation Turning Point is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)—he may mention it if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. An imaginative scheme, Breaking Ground, deals with 15 mentally retarded people with severe health needs. They literally break ground and are recuperated through horticultural activities.
I have mentioned the problem of those who are found incapable of pleading in court. I highlight the terrible instance of a person who was discharged prematurely from Neasden hospital in Hertfordshire—which has its own problems—visited a club run by the borough and murdered one of my constituents. The Laudat Bennett case is well known, but has not been solved properly. I believe that the circumstances that led to the incident are still cause for concern, although increased funding has been provided for psychiatry in the borough.
We face all those difficulties in an area that demonstrably needs more than other areas. I do not think that the Secretary of State understands the effects of the capitation system and the way in which the market works. Each so-called profit centre naturally seeks to make its own economies without knowing the human knock-on effects. Its work is always predicated on contracts, which are sometimes not fulfilled for the future. The Royal London hospital has problems: it usually makes capital gains, but it cannot be sure of the plans.
The biggest problem of all is closures. It is clear from the documents that have been produced by East London and the City health authority that it is considering closing not Newham or Homerton hospital, but St. Andrew's hospital in Bromley-by-Bow. It is an old building—it is an old workhouse—which has 150 beds and serves mainly Newham. The staff are renowned in the area for their teamwork. They do a great job. The hospital provides ancillary services. By accountants' calculations, it could save so many million pounds if it were run down.
There are long-term plans for the replacement of the facilities at St. Andrew's by facilities at Newham general hospital, which has 40 fewer beds. Those plans depend on the private finance initiative, which is not coming along at all fast. The premature rundown of St. Andrew's in Bromley-by-Bow would be disastrous, and would put pressure on the other hospitals in the area. Beds would be removed and the services provided by the laboratories reduced. The corporate nature of the staff is important: they tend to be long-serving because of the type of surgery that they undertake. They work in difficult conditions, but they are greatly appreciated by the people of Newham.
I want to put several questions to the Minister. Did he receive the letter from GPs? Why did he not reply? Are the facts that it contains not correct? As far as I know, they are. Did he not see their letter in The Times? Did he not hear about the half-hour television broadcast that dealt with the problems in east London? How much of the Government's money, which is out for bidding—the complicated document has been placed in the Library—will be available for application by East London and the City health authority? I am told that some of the money that it hopes to obtain has already been included in its calculations: it has been taken into account, even allowing


for the £18 million that the authority has to find. We must know the answer to that question before the coming financial year, in order to make proper plans.
It would be a scandal if people were given long-term notice—which they are now, particularly in the voluntary sector. There are fears throughout the health service staff. The Minister knows that one of the greatest assets of our great health service—or what was once a great health service—is the dedication of the staff. They are being asked to do more and more with less and less. Is that right? The Prime Minister says that the health service is getting more and more, but I do not believe it.
Dissembling has become a d-word in the House, although I would not go as far as to accuse the Government of dissembling in this instance. We need to know—through the loophole of finance—that we shall receive a good part of that £18 million to sustain our services. We are told that the health service is expanding, but how can it be when we have also been told to expect vicious cuts? That is debilitating, and is beginning to destroy a health service of which this country has been proud.
It is because of the initiative of general practitioners and others that we have managed to obtain a response from the people in the service. We await the Government's reply. They are responsible to the electors, who pay for the service that we are all proud of and wish to sustain.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on raising this vital subject. As the finances of East London and the City health authority have been spinning out of control, a kind of madness has set in. Hospital closures are still proposed in the medium term. Recently, the chief executive of ELCHA, Peter Coe, said publicly on the radio that no decisions on the closures could be taken before the general election. Thank God for that.
The absurd people who run the most despised bureaucracy in the national health service have at last realised that there are limits to their bizarre betrayal of local people. I am told privately that their thinking is as follows. The Royal London hospital cannot be closed—I certainly do not want it to close—because the Government are committed to spending £300 million on a new hospital there, even if that distorts local finances for decades to come.
In the medium term, the authority wants to close either Homerton or Newham hospital, but not both. It is a satanic choice: Newham people can die, or Hackney people can die—take your pick. Demographically, the authority would prefer to save Newham hospital, with a functioning accident and emergency unit, but Newham has many problems—so I am told—and Homerton is still new and being built, so its closure would be political dynamite.
That is not the end of the savage irrationality. East London and the City health authority has published a list of cuts in community and hospital care. From Hoxton Health to Lorne house, from counselling for Asian women on health to help for Turkish and Kurdish communities, from City and Hackney MIND to the Hackney bereavement service, from Age Concern Hackney to the Jewish care services for frail older people, cuts are being made.
General practitioners are up in arms. Consultants are blinking in disbelief, voluntary organisations are angry, and the rest of us are stunned. We wait with interest to see whether the Minister is more than complacent today.

Mr. Stephen Timms: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on securing this important debate.
East London health services have the most overstretched staff, who work in the shabbiest conditions and deal with the highest levels of ill health in the country. It is scandalous that they struggle in the 1990s in decrepit conditions that were obsolete in the 1970s. Whatever measurement we use, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham have the highest concentration of health and social problems in the country.
At a time when the Government tell us that they are substantially increasing the resources for the health service, how is it that in east London we are facing the appalling cuts that my hon. Friends described? A couple of years ago, the Government removed the needs weighting for the 24 per cent. of funds in the capitation formula that relate to community health services. At first sight, that may appear to be an obscure technical adjustment, but its consequences for east London have been catastrophic, and have culminated in this crisis.
In the summer of last year, an article in the Health Service Journal presented the top 10 losers from that adjustment to the formula developed at York university and introduced by the Department of Health. East London suffered the largest cash loss to its target— £13.2 million. The other biggest losers were Manchester, Liverpool, Sunderland, Barnsley, North Durham, St. Helen's and Knowsley, South of Tyne, Tees and Newcastle.
In whose interest did the Government decide that they needed to make the adjustment? Which areas have such a pressing case for help that it was necessary to cut the amount for east London, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and Knowsley? The article spelled it out. The biggest gainer of all, with more than a 5 per cent. increase, was mid-Surrey. The second biggest gainer in the entire country was north-west Surrey. The third biggest was south-west Surrey, and the fourth was east Surrey. Who was the Secretary of State for Health while all that chicanery was going on? It was none other than the right hon. Member for south-west Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley).
The Government have cynically siphoned funds away from areas where they are most needed, to spend them in areas where they think that they can buy the most votes. The health needs of Britain have lost out to the vote needs of the Tory party. The Tory party has concluded that it can get away with gerrymandering the health funding formula. That is why we are now facing this crisis. The figures for next year provide us with no comfort at all.
I take no pleasure in recounting those facts, but I make no apology for being angry about the crisis. As I left home in East Ham this morning, my next-door neighbour told me of the problems that she was having getting the treatment that she needs at our local hospital. She said, "I do not blame the doctors," and nor do I. I do not even blame the administrators appointed by the Government to run the service: in this instance, I think that they are doing their best. The fault lies fairly and squarely with the


Conservative party, and the Government's record on health in the hardest-pressed parts of the country is a disgrace.
Across east London, partnerships between local authorities, businesses and Government are bearing fruit and generating new optimism. In health, partnership has barely started, and we are still stuck with the problems of the 1970s. With these huge funding cuts, we are poised to take a huge leap backwards.
The London Docklands development corporation—itself as proud a creature of this Government as any—has at times been in despair at the impossibility of making progress in the health service in east London. What is the Government's response? Their response is to make £18 million-worth of cuts, which constitutes the axing of 5 per cent. of the total budget. I appeal to the Minister to take a close look at the problems in east London, and to see whether, even now, there is some way of averting the catastrophe that is looming.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on his success in securing the debate, and am pleased to be able to respond. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's persistent and pertinent questioning of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and me over the past few months on issues relating to the problems that we are discussing; I also acknowledge the interests of the hon. Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), both of whom are obviously sincerely concerned about the issues.
East London and the City health authority, the local health authority of the hon. Member for Newham, South, is one of the largest health authorities in London, with a population of about 600,000. Like every health authority, it is responsible for studying the health needs of the local population, and ensuring the availability and provision of appropriate care and treatment for local residents.
Health authorities' allocations for 1997–98 were recently announced. East London and the City will receive an integrated allocation of £365.4 million—more money than ever before, and a real-terms increase of £8.7 million, or nearly 2.5 per cent., on its funding this year. That is the 1 1 th highest percentage increase awarded to the 100 health authorities in England; I stress that in response to the points made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East.
As a student of these matters, the hon. Member for Newham, South will know that what we mean by "integrated allocation" is the general allocation of £348 million, together with other allocations influenced by the weighted capitation formula. On top of all that, the authority will receive £25.6 million in non-formula-based moneys for services such as long-term care. After adjustments, that gives the authority a total cash budget of nearly £390 million for 1997–98. Furthermore, central funding is available for national priorities. The health authority is bidding for those funds, and therefore may well have more to spend next year. That means that East

London and the City health authority will have at least £650 for each of its residents to spend on health care next year.

Ms Mildred Gordon: If what the Minister is saying is correct, does he not agree that the money must be being misspent? Speech therapy will now be refused to 375 children between the ages of five and 11, and Moorfields hospital is turning away patients from east London who want eye operations and appointments, because of the reduced funding of the contract for east London and the City health authority. Where is all the extra money going?

Mr. Horam: The extra money is going into the provision of extra services in some areas. If the hon. Lady wishes to take up the question of precisely where there may be some underfunding, that is a matter for the health authority, and I am sure that she will take it up with the authority.
How the health authority uses the extra money is a matter for it to determine, having regard to all local needs, circumstances and views. I remind the hon. Member for Newham, South not only that more money is going to East London and the City and other health authorities this year than ever before, but that, with the merger of district health authorities and family health service authorities from the beginning of April, and with ever-increasing efficiency, more money on top of that is available for health services and direct patient care.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, East London and the City's population is ethnically diverse and characteristic of London's densely populated inner-city areas, and it makes much of that. In response to the point made so forcefully—but, in my view, mistakenly—by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, let me say that our allocation policy is to target resources where the need for health care services is greatest. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, South must listen to what I am saying. Hospital and community health service funding is largely based on a national formula worked out on the basis of the size of the local population, weighted to take account of factors such as the number of very young or very old people and the degree of social deprivation that exists. It also takes account of market forces such as the higher costs of staff, buildings and land in the south-east.
Next year, for the first time, the formula includes a specific needs index for community health services—the hon. Gentleman referred to that—bringing 86 per cent. of the national allocation within the ambit of the formula. That will benefit the health authorities in inner-city areas such as east London.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Horam: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have only five minutes left in which to respond to at least four hon. Members.
Both the changes that have been made to the formula for next year—the introduction of interim needs weighting for community health services, and the refinement of the market forces adjustment—will improve the health authority's weighted-capitation position. That not only means more funds for the authority next year; it means


that the authority is no longer above its weighted-capitation position. It is no longer what we call a capitation loser, and can look forward to a larger share of additional health resources over the next few years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has committed himself to real-terms increases in resources year after year when we are re-elected for the next Parliament.
Before I say more about funding or service planning for next year, let me say something about the health authority's position this year, and the ability of the service to cope for the remainder of the financial year. The authority's initial allocation for the current year was £337 million—£1.63 million more in real terms than in 1995–96. Its forecast at the end of the second financial quarter was that it would end the year with a £13.7 million deficit. That forecast was based on expenditure and trends up to that time; I stress that it is not the position in which the authority is likely to find itself at the end of the year. That is the whole point of forecasts: as part of a proper regime of good financial management and control, they allow action to be taken in good time to keep within the financial balance for the year as a whole.
The health authority has indeed taken action based on its analysis of local circumstances, to ensure that good-quality services continue to be available, and that a sound financial outturn is achieved. In the autumn it bid for, and has received, additional non-recurring funds of £6 million to support strategic change. That is a lump of money that is already going in this year, in addition to the money which—as the hon. Gentleman said—it has bid for next year. That £6 million, together with other measures, means that the authority's residual deficit is now estimated at £2.3 million, or just 0.7 per cent. of its allocation. It is for the authority to manage its affairs for the rest of the year to meet its financial position. The situation certainly does not suggest that local people should be in any way concerned about the continued availability of good-quality services; nor does it suggest a service close to collapse, as some commentators have tried to imply.
What about next year? First, let me say that—as I think the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge—East London and the City health authority has been very open with the local community in planning for the future. Given that health care resources can never be infinite and that health authorities must prioritise among competing demands, it is only right for them to outline some of the difficult choices that they must make as purchasers, and to involve the local community in the making of those choices.
In planning for next year, the health authority set up three task groups, which were charged with looking at acute, mental health and primary and community care services. The process began with an exercise to quantify the implications of continuing with the existing health strategy; that is where the projected deficit of £18 million for next year comes from.
Essentially, we are talking about a re-balancing process. We are looking at national and local priorities, and at the balance between, for example, acute services on the one hand and mental health services on the other. That is how the funding will be rearranged, with the aim of meeting what are regarded as priorities. In addition, the health authority is bidding against the funds that we have made available for next year for the development of services in priority areas. I cannot yet say how much will be allocated, but it will include money for community care, adult intensive care and mental health services, which are a particular problem in that part of the world. I take the hon. Gentleman's point: we shall have to make a decision on that before the end of the year.
I shall certainly look into what the hon. Gentleman said about the letter that was sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—

Mr. Spearing: From the 200 doctors.

Mr. Horam: That letter was sent at the end of November, and I saw the letter in The Times. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that far from more and more being got from less and less, in East London and the City more and more is being got from more and more.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Drugs (Clubs and Raves)

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to protect young people from drugs when attending clubs and raves in Scotland. [8131]

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): We have given councils the powers to control or close down raves for the purpose of safeguarding young people attending events in licensed premises.

Mr. Rathbone: That is welcome news because there are great dangers for young people at these dance parties, as is proven by recent research results which show that the real danger of Ecstasy is not appreciated by many young people who are tempted to take it. Has my hon. Friend considered issuing either the guidelines that have been produced by the London drug policy forum in a document called "Dance Till Dawn Safely" or replicating such guidelines for use by clubs in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly consider that. My hon. Friend is correct: there is evidence of an association between the use of Ecstasy and substantial liver damage. It is a class A drug which carries penalties of up to seven years for possession, and life for trafficking. We have set up a new national drugs helpline to provide free confidential advice, support and referrals 24 hours a day to drug misusers, their families and friends, and to supply information for anybody who is concerned about drugs.

Government Expenditure and Tax Revenues

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the difference between total Government expenditure in Scotland and tax revenues raised in Scotland, expressed as a proportion of Scottish gross domestic product; and if he will make a statement. [8132]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Fourteen per cent.

Mr. Arnold: Does not that rather generous figure emphasise the good sense of our United Kingdom Government, and would not that generosity be put in danger by Labour's devolution plans? Hypothetically, if those devolution plans were put into effect, how would I as an English Member explain to my constituents why, despite that money going to Scotland, Scottish hon. Members could take decisions on issues in my constituency such as health, education and hospitals, although I would not have a similar say over the spending of United Kingdom resources in Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend will forgive me for not agreeing with his use of the word "generous". As I have

just completed public expenditure negotiations with the Treasury, my use of that word might be somewhat wrong. On the overall position, my hon. Friend is right to point out what a good deal Scotland gets from the Union and how our public services and our standard of living would be threatened and destroyed by the policies of the opposition parties either to establish a tax-raising Parliament or to obtain independence—and, of course, the latter would follow from the former.

Mr. Maxton: On Monday, what amount of tax revenue was used to pay for the cost of an RAF aeroplane to fly the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland from Inverness to London? Is the Secretary of State prepared to tell the House exactly how much such journeys cost the Scottish Office?

Mr. Forsyth: The cost of the smallest RAF aeroplane, which is what we used, so we could not accommodate the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends on board—although I would have been happy to strap the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) to the aircraft's wing after his behaviour at the Highlands and Islands Convention—is about £700 per flying hour.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the high revenue level indicates the Scottish economy's success? Is not that confirmed by today's announcement of a dramatic drop in unemployment in Scotland, which shows how well the Scottish economy is going under the Government?

Mr. Forsyth: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Scotland's economy is booming. We have record inward investment. Today, we again have excellent unemployment figures. It is a picture of an economy that has been transformed as a result of the Government's policies, which have been opposed by Opposition Members. All of it would be put at risk by a tartan-tax-raising Scottish Parliament.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the Secretary of State confirm his already public statement that the Scottish Office budget will be reduced by £880 million in real terms in the next three years? What will that mean for public health in Scotland and our ability to control crises such as E. coli bacteria and the spread of salmonella in Scotland? What if Professor Pennington's expert group suggests, as it should, that there should be an independent food standards agency? Will that be vetoed, like his last research project, on the ground that there is not enough money for it? When will the Government stop covering up their conduct in the E. coli crisis by blaming everyone but Ministers of the Crown? Will the Secretary of State now belatedly tell the House and the country what the role of Ministers was at the beginning of the E. coli crisis in Lanarkshire?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is pathetic. We have had two statements to the House on that matter. I wish that he would stop attacking the conduct of North Lanarkshire council, a Labour authority, which, as he well knows, has been and is responsible, under the Food Safety Act 1990, which had all-party support in the House, for environmental health services.
When we win the election, Scotland's health service will benefit from our pledge to increase spending year on year in real terms throughout the whole of the next Parliament, a promise that the hon. Gentleman is not allowed to make and cannot make because he has already made promises in secret to his friends in local government.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, relative to the Scottish budget and expenditure, if we were ever to have a Parliament in Edinburgh that decided on matters such as health, Scottish Members could not raise those issues, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has just done, because they would be part-time and unable to ask questions about Scottish matters—and should be paid part-time wages?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) hopes to have many Labour Members coming down from Scotland, whose job would be not to represent Scotland's interests, but to impose socialism on England. That unstable position would wreck his party's proposals, as it has wrecked every previous home rule proposal, but my hon. Friend makes the important point that Scotland's budget would still be determined here at Westminster, where Scotland's voice would be diminished, as hon. Members on the Liberal Benches acknowledge, through the loss of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland in Cabinet. With a tax-raising Parliament in Edinburgh, it is difficult to see how our present advantageous position would be maintained. The hon. Member for Hamilton and his colleagues are putting their socialist interests ahead of the interests of people who depend on education, health, social work and all our other caring services in Scotland. We will expose that in the forthcoming election campaign.

Skye Bridge Tolls

Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the Skye bridge tolls upon the economy of the highlands and western isles; and if he will make a statement. [8133]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): All our research shows it has been an enormous success.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister acknowledge that there is recognition throughout the highlands and islands that this vexed issue will probably be resolved only with the outcome of the general election? The Scottish Liberal Democrats will be campaigning on a manifesto commitment to abolish the tolls. In the interim, given the Secretary of State's commitment on Monday at the Highlands and Islands Convention that the economics of all this will be examined, will he take account of the evidence that has been provided by the joint consultants report to the Highland council and Skye and Lochalsh Enterprise, which showed that the number of heavy goods vehicles and coaches using the bridge has declined by no less than 25 per cent. since it opened? That is having a drastic economic impact on Skye and the Western Isles.

I hope that we can have the Minister's commitment that that will be taken into account in the pre-election assessment that is to take place.

Mr. Kynoch: I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have recognised what a success the bridge has been for Skye. The figures for the first year, compared with those for the last year of the ferry, show a 16 per cent. increase in throughput. Skye has benefited from the bridge, as has the Mallaig ferry. I should have hoped that he would recognise that the bridge has brought significant benefits to his constituents in Skye.
It was the idea of the Highland regional council that the bridge should be constructed. If tolls were to be removed, that would put a burden on other areas of local authority expenditure. I challenge the hon. Gentleman: if he is willing to put such a pledge in his election manifesto, where would he cut services in the highlands to pay for it?

Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cuts might not be in the highlands? If the tolls were paid for by the Scottish Office, the money might come from cuts in programmes that would affect my constituents in Eastwood. Will my hon. Friend send a firm message to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and his campaigners that, if that is a possibility, it is not on?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. The proposals from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats—(Interruption.] Scottish National party members seem to be indicating that they have the same policies. I am not aware of that party vigorously supporting a tax-raising Parliament other than seeing it as a stepping stone to full independence.
If the Opposition's policy of a tax-raising Parliament came about, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) would be absolutely right. If the cost had to be funded from the Scottish Office, who knows where it might be taken from. It could be taken from Eastwood—it could even be Hamilton. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) might have to face the stark reality of telling his constituents how he would fund something—for a change.

Mr. Macdonald: Can the Minister name any other bridge in Britain that is part of the public highway but is not funded, at least in part, out of public taxation? How can he justify using the most remote communities in Britain as the victims of this unique experiment in privatisation?

Mr. Kynoch: I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that, originally, the people of Skye and the tourists visiting Skye had to use a ferry to get there. The tolls charged on the new bridge are significantly less than the ferry fares.

Mr. Macdonald: They are not.

Mr. Kynoch: When one looks at the published fares, even the discount fares, one can see that the tolls are significantly less. Only large buses benefited from a non-seasonal discount. Now, across the board, there are low season discounts on tolls, some of which are


significantly less than the fares in the last year of the ferry's operation. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the bridge has brought about a 16 per cent. increase in throughput for the benefit of the people of Skye.

Mr. John Marshall: The question refers in part to the economy of the highlands and the western isles. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whisky industry is important to that area? Will he congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on being the first Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce duty on whisky in two consecutive Budgets, and welcome the fact that the Japanese are reducing their discrimination against Scotch? The people of Scotland will drink a toast and a wee dram to the Chancellor—even if mean-minded Opposition Members will not.

Mr. Kynoch: I am glad that my hon. Friend realises the great benefits that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has brought to the whisky industry and—as we were talking about the Skye bridge—to the people of Skye. The bridge makes it that much easier to transport product backwards and forwards between Skye and the mainland, and I am sure that distilleries on Skye will benefit significantly from that improved access.
In the past few years, on average, the ferry has not operated—because of bad weather or maintenance—for approximately 80 hours a year, whereas the bridge, in its first year of operation, was closed for only one hour. I argue not only that my right hon. and learned Friend has brought benefits through his whisky tax reduction—which we all welcome—but that the bridge has enabled the people of Skye to live in very much better spirits than they might have with the ferry.

Mrs. Liddell: Will the Minister explain to the House how many crossings of the Skye bridge could be made for the cost of hiring one RAF jet from Inverness to London? Is that an example of Tory transport policy for the highlands—one service for the privileged, and another for the rest?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady demeans herself by couching a question on the highlands in such terms. It is all about a diversionary tactic by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who spent the first 40 minutes of the first meeting of the Highlands and Islands Convention arguing about procedures.
I think that all those who were present at that meeting agree that, after those first 40 minutes, it was very positive and constructive. We discussed many serious subjects, which was of benefit to the highlands and enabled all the bodies involved in the highlands to get together to co-ordinate their views. We also produced an agenda of topics that future meetings will discuss. Liberal Democrat Members seem to be nodding in agreement. I should think that they would welcome an opportunity to discuss such matters in a sensible forum, without the petty party politics and point-scoring attempted by the hon. Lady.

Uncollected Local Authority Taxes

Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the level of uncollected local authority taxes in Scotland. [8134]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: There is £721 million of uncollected local authority taxes in Scotland.

Sir Irvine Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. That is a lot of money. Which is the worst offending council? What would be the effect in that and other cities in Scotland if the council collected its dues and demands—in other words, carried out its fiduciary duty?

Mr. Forsyth: On uncollected council tax, the worst offenders are Glasgow, Dundee, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Glasgow has the largest amount of uncollected council tax. Currently, band D council tax payers in Glasgow have to pay £807. If all the money were collected, however, they would receive a cheque for £315 from the council.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Secretary of State accept that the £14 billion cost of the poll tax to the British public was due largely to his support for its introduction in Scotland? When will he have the guts and the honesty to confess his share of guilt in imposing that £14 billion tax on the British people? Does he realise the extent to which the people of Scotland regard his cavalier attitude to public spending, which he showed by taking that aircraft on Monday night, as a pathetic spectacle? He might say that the incident was petty, small or minor, but it showed that he has a double standard when it comes to spending public money in Scotland.

Mr. Forsyth: I think that we can take that as a commitment, on behalf of the Labour party, that—if Labour is ever in government—Labour Members will not make any use of RAF jets. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) make that commitment.

Mr. McAvoy: Answer my question.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman wants an answer on the poll tax, but he obviously does not like the answer he has had on the RAF. On his question on the poll tax, the hon. Gentleman might like to note that Labour councils in Scotland are showing an increasingly poor record of collecting council tax. Consequently, council tax payers who pay their council tax are having to pay more. That is what Labour is like in local government, and it would be the same in central Government. If it were ever elected to office, there would be higher taxes and poorer standards in collection and in administering the law. That has been Labour's record in local government, and that is its record in Scotland.

Inward Investment

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the major inward investment projects in Scotland in the last six months. [8135]

Mr. Kynoch: We have attracted 45 inward investment projects to Scotland over the past six months. It would be


impossible to list them all, but I shall mention some. They include projects by: Allied Precision, Appryl, Bermo, CWW Logistics, Hyundai, IBM, Instrument Specialities, Level Nine, Lite-On Technology, PM Support Services, Polaroid, Quintiles, Roche, Rohr, Smart Modular Technologies and Techdrill.

Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my hon. Friend on a massive vote of confidence in the Conservatives' management of Scotland. Does he agree that it would be a cruel trick to follow Labour's proposals to saddle such successful industry with a tartan tax, a social chapter and a minimum wage? Those measures would destroy jobs and deter future investment. Surely the people of Scotland will vote the right way and ensure that Labour never has a chance there or in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right. We have been successful with inward investment because investors recognise the possibility of locating in Scotland and being competitive in world markets. The seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Scotland released this morning show a reduction of 7,900 people, down to 7.4 per cent. That has happened because Scottish business is competitive.
Saddling Scottish business with increased taxation, through the tartan tax or the trade tax—taking the uniform business rate away and giving control back to Labour local authorities that appear intent on putting costs up—would be counter-productive. Those measures, together with the social chapter and the minimum wage, would be disastrous for Scottish companies. If we want unemployment to continue falling and inward investment to continue flowing into the country, we must provide the right economic conditions for business to succeed. Only this Government can provide that.

Mr. Dalyell: How much taxpayers' money went on those 45 projects?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the figures for the regional selective assistance offered to each project are given in the Edinburgh Gazette the quarter after the grant is taken up. The figures are not disclosed at the time of granting, because projects put forward for regional selective assistance have commercial sensitivity. It would be wrong to disclose—

Mr. Connarty: The Minister obviously does not know.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) is prattling from a sedentary position about my not—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has been constantly prattling from a sedentary position since we started. If he expects to be called to put a question, he might contain himself now.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman's prattling from a sedentary position shows his ignorance about how inward investment is attracted to Scotland and how jobs are created in Scotland. If he spent a little more time

considering his party's policies, he might get a little further in succeeding in keeping people in Scotland and keeping investment flowing in.

Mr. Gallie: I welcome the fall in unemployment in Scotland—from 7.8 per cent. to 7.4 per cent. —that has been announced today. What proportion of that fall could be attributed to inward investment, and how much to the uniform business rate and its beneficial effects on small businesses? Does my hon. Friend agree that changing the uniform business rate—as the Labour party wants—would be a disaster for those who want to be employed in Scotland?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right to concentrate on the uniform business rate, because businesses, particularly small businesses, in Scotland have been crying out for it and are pleased to see it. They now have a level playing field throughout Scotland and England.
The Opposition's policy of returning the uniform business rate to local government control and linking it to an increase in band D council tax—the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) does not seem to have decided on the speed with which he will implement it should he ever be able to do so—would have increased business rates for small businesses in Glasgow by 20 per cent. last year. I doubt whether such a policy is good for unemployment. Small businesses would suffer severely under the Labour party's policies.

Mr. Kirkwood: I acknowledge that Locate in Scotland has been very successful in the past six months or so, but does the Minister accept that there is concern that the financial arrangements that it has put in place to achieve that success have been at the expense of some of the other budgets available to local enterprise companies? Will he give an assurance that there will be no top slicing, which would result in other parts of Scotland paying the price for the recipients of Locate in Scotland's excellent work?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman knows that regional selective assistance, for example, is equally available to indigenous companies. He has drawn the situation in the borders to my attention on numerous occasions. As he knows, I visited the borders in August and talked to Borders Enterprise, which will be putting its case to Scottish Enterprise. Scottish Enterprise is responsible for looking after inward investment and, more important, indigenous companies.

Mr. McFall: The Government have our support in attracting inward investment. The Minister knows that neither added value nor technology ventures have been very successful. What is he doing to convert inward investment into indigenous growth in Scotland? He will be aware that only 21 per cent. of the supplies of inward investors are secured in Scotland. If that figure rose by just 5 per cent., we could produce a Chungwha every year, creating 2,000 jobs. What are the Government doing in those two crucial areas?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman has double standards. I recognise his point about attracting research and development—he should welcome the fact that some inward investors are moving research and development activities into Scotland, and we shall obviously try for


more—but the Opposition's taxation proposals would be far more damaging to the prospects of a Chungwha coming to the country. Given his party's taxation regime, it is utter folly for him to talk about getting a Chungwha every year.

Local Authority Completions

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority new dwellings were completed in 1995. [8137]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Just under 400.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister realise that, in Glasgow alone, the number of homeless applicants on the waiting list is more than 2,000? Is not that just one of the many scandalous aspects of the Government's housing policy? Does he agree with today's leader in The Herald in Glasgow, which describes our housing system as rotten to the core and in urgent need of reform?

Mr. Robertson: I agree that our housing system is in urgent need of reform. That is why I have spent the past year and a half encouraging local authorities, such as the one in her constituency, to remove themselves from being direct providers of housing and to transfer their housing stock to housing associations and housing companies.
I hope that the hon. Lady's council, like all others in Scotland, will address the number of vacant properties they have, which amount to 2.5 per cent. of Scotland's entire council housing stock.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister accept that the problem of homelessness is not confined to urban areas? Rural homelessness is an increasing problem. The former Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy and North East Fife district council sold 40 per cent. of its local authority stock and performed the best in Scotland, yet it was not allowed to apply the proceeds from that sale to the problem of homelessness in its area. Why will the Government not adopt a much more flexible approach to the use of council house sales receipts?

Mr. Robertson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that £4 billion-worth of housing debt has to be repaid? That has gone up by 6 per cent. in the past year alone. If he and his hon. Friends are not willing to protect council tenants, I assure him that we most definitely are.

Mr. Chisholm: Does the Minister accept that the dreadful new build figure that he gave will be even worse next year with the 30 per cent. cut in council housing budgets and that the number of housing association starts next year will be slashed from 4,000 to 1,500 due to the 25 per cent. cut in their budgets? Does he realise that renovation of cold, damp houses will be similarly curtailed, at great cost to people's health and NHS budgets? How can the Government seriously claim that they make health a priority when they promote ill health in that way and waste more and more money each year on NHS bureaucracy, as today's annual health statistics make abundantly clear?

Mr. Robertson: Despite all the rumblings and mutterings from Opposition spokesmen on housing since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his statement, no one has ever said that, if Labour were in our position, it would not require local authorities to make the debt repayments that we require. Perhaps one of them would like to indicate, by nodding or shaking his head, whether Labour would go along with that policy.
As always on such matters, they see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil; they will not say anything at all. The Opposition criticise us for doing something, but they will not even say whether they would go along with it or cancel it. I hope that every council tenant in Scotland appreciates the fact that, although the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) comes to the Dispatch Box and says one thing, he apparently has not a clue what he would do if he were ever given the privilege of being a Minister.

Scottish Homes

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the sale of Scottish Homes housing stock. [8138]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: My right hon. Friend has received seven letters in the past three months, two of which were from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Canavan: If the Government really want to promote diversity of choice for tenants, why was Falkirk council disqualified from submitting a bid in the Falkirk area, and the Link housing association bid excluded on the grounds that it did not meet the benchmark valuation, although there had been no prior stipulation that would lead to exclusion? As a result, for some housing estates the only bid being considered is that by Paragon, which is in an advantageous position, with access to Scottish Homes funding, staff and inside information. When there is only one name on the ballot paper, is not democracy reduced to a farce?

Mr. Robertson: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. In view of the nonsense that we have just heard from the Opposition Front Bench, surely he is not asking us to go ahead with stock transfers that do not give value for money. That was the basis on which the other bidders were ruled out, and each of them has had the chance to rebid. Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely think that we should go to the National Audit Office and say that we will accept any bid, regardless of value for money? The Paragon housing association has no greater access to information than any of the other bidders, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well.

Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent survey revealed that 80 per cent. of people in Scotland say that they want to own their own homes? Can he confirm that since 1979, when 35 per cent. of homes were in private ownership, we have achieved 58 per cent. ownership, and that we are well on the way to achieving recognition by the people of Scotland of the fact that we are meeting their aspirations?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. The significant increase in home ownership during the


Government's 18 years in office, from eastern European levels to almost 60 per cent., is a tremendous credit to the people of Scotland. That great achievement was fought for in the teeth of opposition by the Labour party both in the House and in town halls and council chambers throughout Scotland. To its eternal shame, Labour fought to refuse our people the right to buy and own their own homes.

Local Government Finance

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received concerning the 1997–98 financial settlement for Scottish local government. [8139]

Mr. Kynoch: Representations were received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and a number of individual councils and other bodies prior to the announcement of the 1997–98 local government finance settlement.

Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister accept that within that settlement there is a savage 30 per cent. cut in spending on council housing in Scotland at a time when one in four of Scotland's children lives in housing which suffers from dampness, condensation and mould? When there are 7,000 excess deaths in Scotland every year, why are the Government cutting the spending that would keep people's homes warm and dry? Do the Government not understand that cuts in the housing programme increase ill health and thus add to the burdens on an already overstretched national health service?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is great at knocking our proposals for local government in the coming year, but he does not say from where he would take the extra funding if he had the opportunity to decide. Last year he was good enough to tell us that he would take it from the health service. This year he was tempted into saying that he would take it from law and order. We regard health and law and order as priorities, and we believe that local government must get its house in order and start making itself efficient. The settlement that we have given it this year is more than reasonable.

Mr. Richards: Does my hon. Friend have any information about the views of the Scottish business community on the financial settlement for local government next year, especially in the light of the Labour party's proposals for devolution and the disclosures of the level of uncollected taxes and the fact that some 54 per cent. of Scottish gross domestic product may be taken up in public expenditure when the target for the UK as a whole is 40 per cent.?

Mr. Kynoch: Business must regard local government with amazement when Glasgow cries out that it is short of funds but spends some £400,000 on painting the Clyde red to celebrate the centenary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. What has that to do with providing services to the people of Glasgow? As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the £200 million or so of uncollected tax could mean that band D council tax payers would receive a cheque. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) may be interested to know

that, if the £25 million uncollected tax in Dundee were applied to band D council tax, it would reduce it by 68 per cent.

Mr. David Marshall: Does the Minister have any clue about the seriousness of the situation facing the people of Glasgow as a result of cuts in the budgets of Scottish Homes, the Greater Glasgow health board and Glasgow Development Agency, and the almost total lack of inward investment projects attracted by Locate in Scotland, which has been singularly unsuccessful in doing anything on behalf of the city? As Glasgow is Scotland's metropolitan area, when will the Minister drop his anti-Glasgow bias and do something to benefit the people of Glasgow, instead of carping all the time?

Mr. Kynoch: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that I was present at the announcement of an inward investment for Glasgow only the other day—a call centre for Polaroid. Several call centres, with several hundred jobs, have gone to Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman complains about Glasgow development agency's budget, but it has not yet been told its budget for next year. Perhaps he should get his facts right.

Mr. Stewart: Is my hon. Friend aware that local authority expenditure in Glasgow is 57 per cent. higher per head of population than in neighbouring East Renfrewshire? That is unsurprising, as Glasgow does not know how many social workers it has. Is it not time that the Scottish Office moved resources away from high-spending cities to needy outlying areas which would spend the money far more effectively?

Mr. Kynoch: Having been the Minister responsible for local government in Scotland very successfully for many years, my hon. Friend knows how the allocation of funds to local authorities works, using a formula based on discussions between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Office. To give Glasgow a little more time to adjust to the formula allocation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last year gave it an extra £15 million. Councillor Gould, when he came to see the Secretary of State, said that he would use that time wisely. The fact that the social work budget has been exceeded six months into the new year by £3.4 million does not say much for the financial controls. I hope that at the end of the year Glasgow will have done what it agreed to do almost 12 months ago.

Mrs. Ray Michie: It will no doubt be music to the Minister's ears to hear that Argyll and Bute council is embarked on cost cutting and so-called efficiency savings with proposals to axe staff and close three rural schools, one of which is on an island. Why will he not accept that Argyll and Bute, with so many islands to service—which, as he knows, is a costly business—should qualify for the special islands needs allowance?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady has raised the matter with me before, and Argyll and Bute council raised it when I visited in the summer. I am well aware of the council's concerns and needs, which must be reflected in the grant-aided expenditure formula that is applied to it. That is not a matter for me or for the Secretary of State, but


for the joint COSLA and Scottish Office distribution committee. I know that the hon. Lady's council has been putting its point to the distribution committee, and I urge it, if it believes that it has a case, to continue to do so.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the Minister admit that the crisis created by the local Government settlement this year, which has at its roots the costs left behind by the gerrymandering of local government by the Conservative Government, will impact upon real services for real people, including schools in the Stirling constituency, which will be badly hit next year as a consequence? Is it not true that that settlement will also impact upon environmental health departments in councils all over Scotland, and therefore hinder their ability to deal with the type of food poisoning outbreaks that we have seen in the past month?
When will Ministers accept responsibility and answer questions about what they did or did not do at the beginning of the E. coli crisis? What have they got to hide? Why are they afraid to answer the questions that have been repeatedly asked about it? They must stop passing the blame to local authorities and carry the can.

Mr. Kynoch: That is the hon. Member who believes that he is capable of being Secretary of State for Scotland. I am disappointed that he does not recognise the responsibilities outlined in the Food Safety Act 1990: it is local authorities' concern, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made perfectly clear. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would praise the work of his Labour council and the council executive for what they have done during the difficult crisis.
On local government funding, the hon. Member constantly says that we do not give enough to local Government, but constantly refuses to say where he would take from in order to give local government more. If he is serious about being part of a potential Government of the country it is about time he told the House and the country where he would sacrifice spending in order to give it to local government, which is more than well funded in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Homelessness

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Shelter to discuss homelessness in Scotland. [8140]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On 29 November.

Ms Cunningham: Does the Minister agree that the right to a warm, secure and affordable home is a fundamental human right? Has he seen the recent figures from Shelter, which show a 63 per cent. rise in homelessness in Scotland in the past 10 years? In view of that, how can he justify the devastating cuts in the public sector housing budget this year? Will he not at least try to do something to help by commuting the housing debt, in the same way as was done for the private water authorities in England?

Mr. Robertson: The selective quoting of statistics does the House no good. The hon. Lady should perhaps have quoted the figure which shows that homelessness in

Scotland is falling—last year it fell by 3 per cent. Shelter does our local authorities no credit by not giving them the credit for providing homes for 90 per cent. of families deemed unintentionally homeless and therefore in priority need. As for the commutation of debt, the hon. Lady tries to imply that there is some magic way of getting rid of the £4 billion debt. It must be picked up by someone. She has asked for it to be transferred to the national Exchequer. Her party's spending proposal have been independently costed and would cause a budget deficit of about £8 billion in Scotland. She has just said that she would add 50 per cent., bringing it up to £12 billion.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister accept that his unwillingness to express any concern about the levels of homelessness in Scotland causes regret within Scotland? Simply to bluff and bluster and to put questions to the House does not answer the real difficulties in Scotland. Simply to shout and bawl is not an adequate response to the many people in my constituency and in others who do not have a warm, dry house to live in. When will he take those problems seriously?

Mr. Robertson: If I did not care about the plight of the homeless in Scotland, I would not have issued a new draft code on homelessness as guidance for local authorities. I would not have put it out for consultation, nor withdrawn it because of some of the concerns that were expressed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have repeatedly said that we are willing to consult all the relevant bodies in the next few weeks with regard to revising the draft code to ensure that it meets Scottish circumstances in a particularly Scottish way. That does not strike me as the action of a Government who do not care.

Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in introducing a rough sleepers initiative in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [8141]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: My right hon. Friend issued a consultation paper on the rough sleepers initiative on 11 December.

Sir Russell Johnston: The Minister knows that my question was tabled before the statement was made. Following the variety of questions on housing, has the Minister seen the latest Shelter estimate that the housing waiting list in Scotland is now longer, at 194,579, than it has ever been? Is that not a dreadful comment at the end of 17 years of Tory government?

Mr. Robertson: I regret that the hon. Gentleman chooses to question me about rough sleepers. When we introduce a rough sleepers initiative, he chooses to ignore the fact that we have done so. That is a matter of real regret. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely had at heart the issue of rough sleeping in Scotland, he would not have continued with that question.
In reply to a previous question, I said that 2.5 per cent. of all council houses in Scotland are vacant. I hope that all local authorities, including the hon. Gentleman's, will turn their attention to getting those houses back into use.

Ms Rachel Squire: Is the Minister aware that approximately 1,800 pensioners in Scotland become


homeless every year and that there is a severe shortage of all types of sheltered accommodation, especially public rented accommodation, to meet the needs of elderly and disabled people? Is he aware that, far from enabling local authorities to adapt and improve unsuitable housing that would allow the elderly to remain and live in the community, the Government's housing policies—especially the increase from 25 per cent. to 75 per cent. for debt redemption—will force many elderly people to abandon their homes and communities and go into institutional care?

Mr. Robertson: First, the hon. Lady obviously has not heard of our care and repair policy, which provides funds to allow elderly people to do the very thing that she describes—to adapt their own homes so that they can stay in them. The hon. Lady is right to say that that is where many of them wish to remain.
Perhaps the hon. Lady's remarks would be better directed towards hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench, who have committed not one more penny than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has committed to spending on housing in Scotland. I am happy to stand by the plans that my right hon. Friend outlined. The hon. Lady's own Front Benchers will not commit one penny more for housing in Scotland. I hope that she questions them in the same way as she has questioned me.

Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses he received in the consultation process on the draft code of guidance on homelessness; and when he expects to report his conclusions. [8142]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: We have received 140 responses to the consultation document and we shall publish the final code early next year.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister admit that not one closing date submission supported temporary housing for the homeless? Does he accept that temporary housing will not solve the problem, and that only permanent housing will meet the needs of individuals and families who are homeless in Scotland?

Mr. Robertson: Indeed, not one response supported it, which is why we have gone on to further consultation, and that is one of the elements under review.

Public Expenditure Statement

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on his public expenditure statement presented to the Scottish Grand Committee on 9 December. [8143]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: My public expenditure plans have been welcomed by the universities, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Tourist Board and many others.

Mr. Salmond: And by the RAF.

Mr. Forsyth: Yes, and by the RAF.

Mr. Salmond: Was not the Secretary of State ashamed at having to confirm that total research spending on

E. coli 0157 by the Scottish Office over a six-year period amounted to a mere £500,000? Given that it was known well before the tragedy in Lanarkshire that we had a particular problem with E. coli 0157 in Scotland, is that not a deplorably low amount? Does it not typify an attitude in Scottish Office towards research spending, environmental health and public safety which reeks of complacency? Was not the so-called insider in the Health Department who was quoted this weekend right to say that the current hyperactivity of the Secretary of State for Scotland is a cover for his inactivity when it mattered?

Mr. Forsyth: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. I am surprised by his ignorance of the way in which research is commissioned by the Government. As he knows, it is done on the advice of the chief scientist's office. He also knows that the Department of Health is the lead Department in that respect. Given that he has been told repeatedly that research into E. coli is more than £2 million, but insists on quoting the Scottish Office figure instead of that for the Department of Health, I can only assume that he is deliberately trying to distort the situation and to make cheap political capital out of a very distressing situation in Scotland. I am sure that he will earn everyone's contempt for doing so.

Mr. Congdon: rose
[HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he?"]

Mr. Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to remind those who demand higher public expenditure in Scotland that it is already higher per head than it is in England? Does he agree that those who persist in their demands for devolution will have to answer to taxpayers in England as to why we should continue to subsidise such high levels of public expenditure if they want a devolved Parliament?

Mr. Forsyth: I noticed that several Opposition Members asked "Who is he?" when my hon. Friend asked the question. The answer is that my hon. Friend is one of many Members of the House who would determine Scotland's budget if we ever had a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers. It would not be determined by Scottish Members of Parliament sitting in a Scottish Parliament. Those Opposition Members who jeer and sneer at the key point that my hon. Friend makes—that devolution threatens Scotland's public services—should recognise the strength of that argument and realise that their responsibility is to the people of Scotland, not to socialism and the Scottish Labour party.

Private Finance Initiative

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which hospital projects he has approved for financing under the private finance initiative. [8144]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Ferryfield elderly care facility in Edinburgh, information systems at Law and Yorkhill hospitals and several contracts for care beds, medical analysis equipment and clinical waste disposal have been approved for financing under the private finance initiative by my right hon Friend or have been


taken forward by health service bodies under delegated authority. A further 15 projects with a capital value of £588 million are at an advanced stage.

Mr. Foulkes: You will have noticed, Madam Speaker, that the Minister did not mention the East Ayrshire community hospital. In view of all the written questions that I have tabled and in view of the fact that the project was delayed for at least two years by the Minister's predecessor as a result of spurious consultation about alternative sites and has now been delayed for another six months because of the PH proposal, when there is money in the Scottish Office budget to fund that hospital by traditional means, why does the Minister not give it the go-ahead, instead of putting political dogma above my constituents' interests?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: First, the project has not been delayed as the hon. Gentleman says. Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS trust won the competition with other trusts on the basis of providing a new hospital. We are determined to make progress on a PH proposal so that that important facility can be secured. Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS trust must fully explore whether it can provide a hospital under the PFI. The trust is confident that it can do so by further negotiation. Revised proposals from the bidder arrived as recently as mid-November. Those reduced the costs, but further negotiations are required. Negotiations should proceed as quickly as possible.

Full-time Students

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for expanding the number of full-time students in further education taking higher level courses with particular reference to expanding the availability of bursaries. [8146]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Except in those colleges involved in the university of the highlands and islands project, we have no further plans to expand the number of full-time students in further education taking higher education courses. Future arrangements for bursaries are currently under review.

Mr. Worthington: I thank the Minister for responding to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and myself to provide bursary money to enable students at Clydebank to continue their courses, which they had been prevented from doing as a result of underfunding.
Does the Minister realise that about half the colleges in Scotland which are in financial trouble will be unable to expand to attract more students next year because there will not be the bursary money to support those students in their courses?

Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentlemen for coming in. We had a useful meeting, which helped to address some of the problems at that college. Regarding the situation on bursaries, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we are reviewing all this and we have asked for comments from the entire sector with a view to seeing whether any changes need to be made. We have an open mind on that. Last Friday, I had a useful meeting in

Inverness with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and some of his college principals. If the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) or any other hon. Member has any views that he wishes to feed in, I am willing to listen to representations and consider the matter.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister carefully examine the plans that are being made, and carried out experimentally in England, to provide proper bursaries for dance and drama students, which are not being mirrored in Scotland? It remains an anomaly that discretionary spending is excluding Scottish would-be dancers and dramatic performers from proper further education opportunities.

Mr. Robertson: Yes, indeed: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall look carefully at that; and at any information that he wants to give me beforehand. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is shouting from behind me, "What about the Spice Girls?".

Care in the Community

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about care in the community in Angus and Perth and Kinross; and if he will make a statement. [8147]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have received representations from service users, independent sector providers and my hon. Friend, which led to an inspection of community care services in Angus and Perth and Kinross. The report was published on 14 November.

Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the report showed clearly that the quality of service in the private sector and the local government sector was exactly the same, but that the private sector was £200 per head per week cheaper? Consequently, if the private sector had been used, many more places would have been available, bed blocking in the health service would have been greatly reduced, and the whole service would have operated much more effectively—not just in Perth and Kinross and Angus, but throughout Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The main finding was that those authorities could achieve long-term savings totalling between £3 million and £6 million by making more use of the independent care sector. We are to introduce directions on information which will require authorities to make public the costs of care in different sectors. I can also confirm that the Secretary of State recently announced an additional £15 million for health boards to reduce pressures that are likely to arise over the winter.

Electronic Tagging

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the effectiveness of electronic tagging for convicted offenders. [8148]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Representations on this matter were made by 18 of those who responded to


our "Crime and Punishment" White Paper, and we are still receiving representations in connection with our consultation paper on electronic monitoring of young offenders.

Mr. Brazier: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that any assessment of the usefulness of tagging in all parts of the United Kingdom must be based not on considerations of the civil liberties of the convicted offenders but on its effectiveness in preventing future crime and hence its impact on the community and especially on the victims of the crimes?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Punishment and deterrence are importance. This is a useful disposal. Under the English pilot schemes, curfew orders have been made—most often for burglary, theft, driving while disqualified, possession of drugs and some violent offences. The initial findings are that the pilot schemes have been successful. We believe that this will be a useful disposal for the courts—to ensure, for instance, that football hooligans are restricted to certain areas.

Employment (Eastwood)

Mr. Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest estimate of employment and unemployment in the Eastwood constituency. [8149]

Mr. Kynoch: The figures announced today show that 10.1 per cent. of the work force in the Eastwood constituency were registered unemployed and claiming benefit in November. This shows a fall of 9.7 per cent. since November 1995 and confirms the extent to which Eastwood, like the rest of the country, is benefiting from the Government's very successful economic policies.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the House and my constituents those extremely encouraging figures. Does he agree that they show the sustained improvement in employment trends throughout my constituency, in large measure due to the expanding small firms and self-employed sector? Does he further agree that that expansion would be wholly undermined by the increases in business rates threatened by the Labour party?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. The policies of the Opposition parties would be

counter-productive to the future success of small businesses. That is recognised by the small business owners whom I meet as I go around the country.

Mr. Home Robertson: Given that a number of people from Eastwood work at Scottish Power's headquarters in Cathcart, just as a number of my constituents work at Scottish Power's Cockenzie power station, will the Minister acknowledge that it is vital for the people of Eastwood and of East Lothian that the interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland should be constructed, in the interests of both Northern Ireland and Scotland? Will the Secretary of State therefore withdraw the ridiculous, unwarranted and unprecedented conditions that he has attached to the route across south Ayrshire so that this vital project can go ahead in the interests of people on both sides of the Irish sea?

Mr. Foulkes: indicated dissent.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman should look to his left at the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who was shaking his head throughout the hon. Gentleman's comments. That is yet another split between Opposition Members which I hope the whole House has recognised.

Mr. Beggs: Despite the reply that the Minister has given, does he accept that there are economic benefits for constituents in Eastwood and elsewhere in Scotland if interconnection happens: that jobs will be secured in Scotland, that new jobs will be created, and that we in Northern Ireland will have security of supply and real competition to bring down electricity prices to domestic and industrial consumers, thereby benefiting both Scotland and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Kynoch: Of course I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, and he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has stated that he is minded to accept the interconnector, with the condition that four sections should be undergrounded. My right hon. Friend has put that proposal out to swift consultation with interested parties, and responses have to be in by 20 December. Once the responses have been received, my right hon. Friend will reconsider the issue. I am sure that he has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Public Interest Immunity

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of public interest immunity in relation to Government documents as it operates in England and Wales, in the light of the consultation following publication of the Scott report. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is making a similar statement in another place.
The Government are committed to the principle that there should be the maximum disclosure consistent with protecting essential public interests. The House will recall that the law that prevailed at the time of the Matrix Churchill case was further developed by the House of Lords case of ex parte Wiley in July 1994. Since that case, Ministers have had a gener al discretion to disclose documents without the prior approval of the court, if they consider that to be in the overall public interest.
Against that background, it is the view of Sir Richard Scott that legislation on public interest immunity is neither necessary nor desirable, and the Government agree. Public interest immunity is needed because of the potential conflict between two important public interests—the clear public interest in the administration of justice, which in a criminal case is the fair trial of an accused, and what is sometimes also the clear public interest in the confidentiality of certain documents or information.
The House will bear in mind the fact that the so-called immunity is subject to the ruling of the court, and that, in a criminal case, when Government documents are in issue, the judge himself examines any such document and makes the actual decision on disclosure in the light of the facts of the case.
In their proposals for the future, the Government have had particular regard both to the recommendations of Sir Richard Scott and to the many responses received during the consultation process. The Government's conclusions represent a new approach, which is set out in a paper today being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Under the new approach, Ministers will focus directly on the damage that disclosure would cause. The former division into class and contents claims will no longer be applied. Ministers will claim public interest immunity only when it is believed that disclosure of a document would cause real damage or harm to the public interest.
That new approach constitutes a change in the practice to be adopted by Ministers, but fully respects existing legal principles, as developed by the courts, and is subject to the supervision of the courts. It also accords with the view expressed by the present Lord Chief Justice that
public interest immunity should only be claimed for the bare minimum of documents for which the claim of serious harm can be seen to be clearly justified".
The Government intend that the test shall be rigorously applied before any public interest immunity claim is made for any Government documents. It is impossible in advance to describe such damage exhaustively. The damage may relate to the safety of an individual, such as an informant, or to a regulatory process; or it may be damage to international relations caused by the disclosure of confidential diplomatic communications.
Normally it will be in the form of direct and immediate harm to, for example, the nation's economic interests or our relations with a foreign state. In some cases, it may be indirect or longer-term damage to which the disclosure of the material would contribute, as in the case of damage to a regulatory process. In any event, the nature of the harm will be clearly explained.
This new, restrictive approach will require, so far as possible, the way in which disclosure could cause real damage to the public interest to be clearly identified. Public interest immunity certificates will in future set out in greater detail than before both what the document is and what damage its disclosure would be likely to do—unless to do so would itself cause the damage that the certificate aims to prevent. That will allow even closer scrutiny of claims by the court, which is always the final arbiter.
The new emphasis on the test of serious harm means that Ministers will not, for example, claim PII to protect either internal advice or national security material merely by pointing to the general nature of the document. The only basis for claiming PII will be a belief that disclosure will cause real harm.
In relation to national security, the Government's approach takes into account the types of information that Parliament defined as sensitive in the Intelligence Services Act 1994, although, as I have said, a document will not attract PII simply because it falls into a pre-defined category. Many public interest immunity claims are not the responsibility of Government. Although the Government believe that their approach can be applied more widely, the paper placed in the Library only restricts Government claims.
I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate and taken the trouble to respond to the consultation exercise in this complex area. A combination of the revised regime laid down by the House of Lords in ex parte Wiley and the Government's new approach should ensure that PII claims will be significantly less frequent in future. I repeat that any claim in a criminal case will always, in the end, be subject to review by the court itself.
I believe that those factors, combined with the new test based on serious damage, which I have described and which is set out more fully in the paper today being placed in the Library of each House, provide what should prove a sensible, balanced and effective regime for the future; and I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Morris: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for coming to the House to explain the Government's conclusions on the consultations that he set up as long ago as last February—although it has taken a little time. The House will also need time to react properly, and to study his paper that is now in the Library.
First, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the application of his conclusions to Ministers will not affect the run-of-the-mill informant case and the need to protect such information? Secondly, will he clarify whether—and, if so, where—he departs from the substance of Sir Richard Scott's conclusions? Thirdly, does the abolition of the distinction between class and a contents claim mean effectively—particularly in criminal cases—that only contents claims will be made in future, whatever label they may or may not have?
Fourthly, when the Attorney-General refers to a claim being made only where there is real damage or harm to the public interest, does that mean the same as Lord Templeman meant in Wiley's case when he referred to "substantial" harm to the public interest?
Fifthly, do the Attorney-General's conclusions in adopting Wiley mean that the effect is a wholly new approach by Government? Does he expect that the claims will be made only rarely in criminal cases, and that Ministers will have to judge for themselves in each particular case whether to claim and the width of such a claim, having regard to the possibility of editing?
Sixthly, I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's response to Scott. Ministers should have more time to consider their position, and should not have to consider matters overnight, which was the position in which the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) was placed.
Having had a little experience of the urgency of dealing with red boxes, may I ask how this will operate in practice? What is the bottom line of this new approach? Will the more rigorous approach in civil or criminal cases, together with the effect of new legislation, radically reduce the number of claims? Will claims be made only in exceptional cases, after personal examination by Ministers and, where appropriate, a further check by the courts?
Lastly, can we properly anticipate that, when the liberty of the subject is involved, and when a person may go to gaol or receive other punishment, the chances of a wrong decision will be virtually eliminated? When second thoughts occur about a decision that is adverse to an individual, will the Attorney-General instruct those prosecuting to have no hesitation in withdrawing a criminal case, at whatever stage, if documents that may be of assistance to the defence have been withheld?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the welcome that he gave to the substance of the report, and for the way in which he put his questions, which I shall answer in the order in which he raised them.
I confirm that the new approach will not affect run-of-the-mill cases. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had great experience in that area, and he knows that, in non-government cases involving police reports, informants and so on, the system works well. Although the courts may choose to adopt some of the practices that the Government are adopting, that will be a matter for them. Those practices will not be forced on them, and I expect the system to continue much as before in run-of-the-mill cases.
Secondly, I confirm that the departure from the previous position relates to the old distinction between class and contents claims and the new emphasis on real harm or real damage. It is not helpful to say that they are all contents claims rather than class claims. Class reasoning may be said to operate in some claims. if that is so, it will be clearly explained in the certificate. In every case, the Minister will have to be satisfied that real harm—which is the same as serious harm or serious damage—would be caused.
That brings me to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fourth point, about whether "real damage" means the same as "substantial harm". In the words of Lord Templeman in the ex parte Wiley case, the straight answer is yes.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's next question was whether there will be fewer such cases in future, following the new approach and the ex parte Wiley case in 1994. He made that point in a number of forms in his last three questions. The straight answer is that I believe that there will be significantly fewer cases.
In fact, the change in the law declared in ex parte Wiley was extremely helpful, because it gave Ministers a discretion where previously there had been an element of rigidity through the need to leave anything except a clear case to the court. For that reason, the number of occasions after 1994 on which public interest immunity certificates had to be used by Ministers was already lower. I am confident that the number will continue to be low in future.
I confirm that the approach is more rigorous. We recognise the importance of giving adequate time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly referred to that: he knows something of the pressures, and I claim to know something of them myself. As the courts in recent criminal cases always looked at the documents, the chances of a miscarriage of justice were happily small.
I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, first, that the court will always continue to see such documents in criminal cases, and secondly that it is one of the key tenets of the prosecution always to keep any prosecution under review. If material emerges that shows that a prosecution ought not to continue, it will then be stopped.

Sir Archibald Hamilton: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on introducing measures that will certainly give public interest immunity certificates a much better public image. He told us, however, that the judge would make the decision on disclosure. In the light of that, can he tell us whether there have been any miscarriages of justice as a result of the issue of ministerial public interest immunity certificates?

The Attorney-General: I am certainly not aware that any miscarriages of justice have arisen from the issue of a ministerial public interest immunity certificate.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome what the Attorney-General has told the House, so far as it follows the recommendations in chapter 5 of Sir Richard Scott's report. Can he confirm, however, that, notwithstanding his announcement today, if the procedures that he has outlined had been in place at the time Ministers, could well have signed public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill case?
Will the Attorney-General also tell the House what his role is to be hereafter? He will recall that Sir Richard Scott was critical of a failure on his part to advise prosecuting counsel to advise, in turn, the judge in the Matrix Churchill case of the reservations of the then President of the Board of Trade when he was called on to sign public interest immunity certificates. Where in the proposals that the Attorney-General has outlined today are the procedures to prevent that from happening again in the future?

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether, under the new procedure, Ministers might still have signed public interest immunity


certificates in the Matrix Churchill case. Yes, I expect that there would have been some certificates. They would have covered fewer documents, but they would have been perfectly properly signed—as, indeed, they were properly perfectly signed under the law as it stood at the time.
That brings me to the hon. and learned Gentleman's second question. There was a disagreement between SirRichard Scott and myself as to the law that was understood at the time. Sir Richard clearly and courteously set out his findings in his report.
On that issue, the House will recall—certainly it will be recalled by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who will have read the report of the debates in the House of Lords—that, while there has been no judicial ruling on the matter, all six Law Lords and former Law Lords who participated in the debate took the view of the law that I had given, and expressly endorsed it. Lord Ackner made that abundantly clear in another place.
Sir Richard Scott himself was good enough—in the House, before the Public Service Committee in May—to make it clear that points made by Lord Ackner, who said that he might have failed to distinguish between the law as it then stood and the law as he thought that it ought to have been, perhaps contained an element of truth. I am very grateful to Sir Richard for saying that.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on getting it right over Matrix Churchill, and welcome the clarification, simplification and improvement of a very complicated area of the law as far as Ministers are concerned. Will he, however, reassure the public that, at the end of the day, it will still be up to the good sense of an independent judiciary to decide whether a public interest immunity certificate should be upheld?

The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend makes a crucial point, which applied in the Matrix Churchill case and applies today. In any criminal case in which public interest immunity is claimed by a Minister of the Crown, the judge will always see the documents, and in the end it will be the judge who decides whether there is any question of withholding such a document from disclosure.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to the Attorney-General, who has thrown a very positive light on the issue of public interest immunity certificates, but may I turn his attention to his other responsibility, as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland?
May I ask about the role of public interest immunity certificates in coroners courts in Northern Ireland? Will coroners there have the same powers in relation to those certificates as an ordinary member of the judiciary? As juries' verdicts in Northern Ireland are based on evidence, the withholding of information by either the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ministry of Defence from coroners' juries can cause severe damage not only to the public interest but to the interests of individuals in Northern Ireland.

The Attorney-General: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, law and practice in Northern Ireland

have developed differently, as indeed they have in Scotland. That is why I was careful to say at the beginning of my statement that the new approach that I have set out applies to England and Wales. The law will continue to be developed in Northern Ireland by the judiciary.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I invite my right hon. and learned Friend to see whether we can change the language, and start to describe these certificates as public interest disclosure certificates, which in effect is what they have become. Will he confirm that, up to Wiley and up to the Scott report, the law and procedure had been set only by judges and not by Ministers or Parliament? Will he also confirm that, in future, the advice of Law Officers to Ministers will be on the basis of a public announcement following a review, as today, or to guide Ministers with the words of judges, as in the past?

The Attorney-General: I understand my hon. Friend's point about nomenclature, but, albeit that "public interest immunity certificate" is not particularly illuminating, "public interest disclosure certificate" might not be much more so. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not adopt that suggestion. I can confirm that, up to and including the decision in Wiley and since, the law in this area is judge-made. My statement changes practice only in relation to Government documents which are the subject of certificates by Ministers. My hon. Friend is right: the law in this area will continue to be judge-made.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Perhaps the Attorney-General can explain. I think that this all arose because a number of Ministers said that they had to sign these public interest immunity certificates when there was a prospect of people being sent to gaol. Their defence was, "Look, the Attorney-General told us to sign them." The then President of the Board of Trade had a different view; he said, "Hold on a bit—I'm not too sure about this prospect."
The net result, from what I have heard the Attorney-General say—he can tell me if I am wrong—is that, in similar circumstances where some people could possibly go to gaol, he or another Attorney-General could go to Ministers and say, "Look here, you had better sign these documents." Would they be expected to sign them, or would the Heseltine theory apply? What has really changed? Let us cut all the cackle and hear what the situation is all about.

The Attorney-General: That is a helpful question, from a seeker after truth. The first point that the hon. Gentleman will want confirmed is that there has been no question whatever of suppression in relation to public interest immunity certificates. The whole notion that they were "gagging orders"—a phrase which I might have heard trip off the hon. Gentleman's lips occasionally—

Mr. Skinner: No, I used it last time.

The Attorney-General: I know, but the hon. Gentleman knows better now, and he is not using that language.
They were never "gagging orders", and they are not "gagging orders". If Matrix Churchill were being re-run now, it would be possible for a Minister to have discretion to volunteer disclosure when he felt that the documents


could be disclosed, even when it was not a clear case in which they were bound to be disclosed on any balance of the public interest. Consequently, whether my right hon. Friend would have had to make a certificate at all, or whether he could have made one in relation to many fewer documents, which I believe is likely, is a moot point. It would certainly have been a great many fewer documents.
A combination of the decision in ex parte Wiley and the new approach in my statement will, as I said when I was rightly questioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon, lead to many fewer such certificates, covering far fewer such documents in future.

Mr. Rupert Allason: May I give sincere thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend for what I believe to have been the widest consultation on this topic? Is it not correct that every lawyer who has ever had anything to do with PII certificates was invited to contribute to the consultation process?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the abolition of the class and contents claims announced today will eliminate any chance of injustice in future? Does he also agree that the clear explanation that he has described and that will appear in future certificates will also reduce the possibilities of injustice?
Finally, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the abolition of the blanket use of national security, in line with the evidence given by David Bickford to the Matrix Churchill inquiry, will be abolished? Is that not precisely in line with the undertaking to me and to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seven minutes, or whenever it was, before the end of the Matrix Churchill debate?

The attorney-general: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. Taking his last point first, yes, that does fulfil the undertaking of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to my hon. Friend. As part of the consultation, I considered carefully what he had said on the matter, and it has been taken into account, along with the responses from others. I am grateful for his welcome for the clear explanation that will appear in any such certificate, for the ending of the often confusing apparent distinction between class and contents claims, and for the new concentration on real or substantial harm.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I welcome today's proposals, but does the Attorney-General agree that one of the problems is that documents are often considered at the beginning of a trial, when perhaps their full meaning is not fully understood by the tribunal trying the matter? Therefore, would it not be right—will not the Attorney-General give this undertaking—for Law Officers to continue to monitor cases in which documents or ministerial certificates are granted, to ensure that, if the court has misunderstood the full purport of the documents, the officers will intervene and seek to redress that fact?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman makes interesting points. I expect cases of difficulty to come to the Law Officers. I would not expect every case to come to them as a matter of routine. One of the advantages of the system in a criminal case whereby the judge sees the

documents, if they are in issue, at the beginning of the case, is that the judge himself will have in mind the possibility that they may become relevant when they had not initially seemed relevant.
The House will recall that, in the Matrix Churchill case, Judge Smedley initially saw the national security documents. When he first saw them, and heard argument, they did not appear to him to be relevant. Counsel for Mr. Henderson then made it clear that Mr. Henderson was saying that he was an agent of the intelligence services. The judge considered the documents again, and changed his view the following day. That is a short-order example of what could happen after a longer period in another case. That is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the label "ministerial gagging order", which the press have attached to PII certificates, is misleading nonsense—like so much else in the newspapers—for the very reason that the effect of that so-called gagging order is to place the documents in question before the trial judge, so that he can decide whether those documents should or should not be admitted into evidence?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Anyone who wished to suppress something would be mad to attach it to a PII certificate, because he would know that, in a criminal case, putting those documents in front of the judge would be the first thing that would happen. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the expression "gagging order" should not be used. It should not have been used in the past. It has grossly misled the public, and it should not be used in future.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What would have been the position under the new dispensation of Alan Moses QC? Will the Attorney-General reflect on paragraph G13.119 of the Scott report, which states:
I question the propriety of instructing counsel 'to seek to avoid the disclosure of documents"'.
It goes on:
The authority would not have been forthcoming from Mr. Heseltine … The process of seeking the requisite instructions would have exposed the impossible position in which the Treasury Solicitor and Mr. Moses were placed, namely, representing Departments with different views.
Will the House have an opportunity to discuss this after looking at the statement and the documents? Have the views of Professor Anthony Bradley, who wrote a long article in the journal Public Law been taken into account?

The Attorney-General: A great many learned and academic comments have been made on this matter, and, as far as possible, they have been taken into account, but I will not comment on one particular contribution.
I shall now deal with the position of counsel in the case, Mr. Alan Moses, now Mr. Justice Moses, and the fact that he might have been in an impossible position. One of the points that will be considered carefully for the future, and which has been considered in the past on occasion, is whether prosecuting counsel is sufficiently equipped to present arguments on behalf of one Department which may be in conflict with another. That was an interesting and important point made by Sir Richard Scott, and it will be borne in mind carefully in future.
In this case, it is not correct to say that Mr. Alan Moses was ever seeking to avoid disclosure, in the sense of seeking to suppress anything. He was arguing in good faith—I do not think that anybody has suggested otherwise, and I would challenge them strongly if they did—that the documents were not necessary or relevant to the issues as he saw them, and that he did not believe that they were bound to be disclosed. Had he believed that they were bound to be disclosed, they would have been disclosed, and I would not have had to advise my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to make his certificate.
The House should be crystal clear. Every such document was put clearly before Judge Smedley. He read every document attached to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's certificate and to the certificates of other Ministers during the argument before the case began, and he made his decision even before the case began. The case did not collapse but ran for four weeks, until it was withdrawn by prosecuting counsel—in accordance with the points made to me by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham)—in exercise of his function of fairness as prosecuting counsel.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Apparently, both sides of the House now agree with open government and with the fact that we have the best civil service in the world. If we are to retain a civil service which is unpoliticised and impartial, it must be confident that advice given to Ministers, particularly that given by private secretaries to Ministers, will be protected unless there is a danger of miscarriage of justice. Can my right hon. and learned Friend reassure civil servants that our traditional way of doing things will be maintained?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the trickiest issues, which is the extent to which documents relating to advice to Ministers should be withheld. What I have made clear today is that documents relating to advice to Ministers will be judged by the same test as documents in the category of national security and various other categories, which is whether disclosure would cause serious harm to the public interest. They will have to pass that test. If they can—I can conceive of circumstances in which they would—they would be entitled to protection, subject of course to the overriding views of the judge, to whom they would be shown and who would make his decision after argument.

Mr. Max Madden: As the Attorney-General has said that judges will remain the final arbiters in those matters, will there be any right of appeal against a judge's decision? Unless there is, yet another legal anomaly would seem to be created whereby there is no right of appeal against an individual judge's decision. Under the new arrangements, will the

presumption be that Ministers will seek the advice of the Attorney-General in those matters, or that the Attorney-General will offer Ministers such advice?

The Attorney-General: I shall take the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question first. I should expect—this will be the guidance given to the public service—that cases of difficulty, but not every case, will be referred to the Law Officers for advice.
On the first question, if the trial judge decides that a document should not be disclosed, there will, at the end of the case, be an ultimate right of appeal. The general rule in Crown court trials, which I think would apply in this instance, is that the trial judge's ruling on an interlocutory matter of this nature in the case is final at that moment. One could not rush off to the Court of Appeal on the matter at that stage.
If I have mistaken the position in any way, however, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman, as he has raised an interesting point of law, and place a copy of the letter in the Library. But, at the conclusion of the case, if one believed that an injustice had arisen, it would be a ground of appeal.

Mr. Rod Richards: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new PII regime will guarantee protection of sensitive intelligence sources, both human and technical?

The Attorney-General: Broadly, the answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. He has posited a very sensitive source, which would normally require protection. In such cases, if the information were essential to a fair trial, the prosecution would have to decide either to disclose the information and to proceed with the trial, or to drop the trial to protect the source. The system provides a method of proper protection for such security information, although occasionally it may be necessary to drop a trial to protect the source.

Mr. Ian Pearson: May I press the Minister further on the issue of ministerial responsibility? As a non-lawyer, I was wondering whether he could explain who in government is responsible as the final arbiter of whether public interest immunity should be claimed? Is it the relevant Secretary of State, or is it the Attorney-General? Is there not an obligation to adhere to the advice of the Attorney-General?

The Attorney-General: The ultimate responsibility is the Minister's, but the Minister will act on advice. If the advice is cogent and appears to be in accordance with the law as it is then understood, the Minister will be likely to follow it, as my right hon. Friend followed the advice that I gave him on that specific occasion. Ultimate responsibility for a decision on whether to claim public interest immunity belongs to the Minister. In future, as I have explained, the matter will be a lot easier, because, first, after ex parte Wiley, the Minister has a much wider discretion; and, secondly, the new approach focuses the mind so very clearly on the test of real harm.

Points of Order

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for giving you only relatively short notice of my point of order, but it is on a serious matter that has been brought to my attention. Yesterday, I tabled four questions. The first was to the Lord Chancellor's Department, asking whether the new Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland had ever been a Mason or a member of the Orange Order.
The other three questions were to the Home Office. Two were on the intolerable strip searches to which Miss Rosaleen McAliskey has been subjected in Holloway prison, and the fourth was on why prisoners may receive The Times but not The Irish Times, The Daily Telegraph but not the Belfast Telegraph, the Daily Mail but not the Irish News, and The Sun but not the News Letter.
Those questions were accepted—although not in that form—by the Table Office and were sent to the Stationery Office, where they were received by those appointed by the House to accept and to check such questions.
Those questions did not appear on the Order Paper. When I asked at the Table Office—I apologise again for giving such short notice—I was informed that they had been lost by the privatised HMSO. In my experience of almost 31 years as a Member of Parliament, that has never happened before. Those at the Table Office were most apologetic, but the matter was not their responsibility.
My point of order is to ask whether you, as Speaker and therefore champion of the House and protector of our rights, have received an apology from the newly privatised HMSO for that flagrant dereliction of its duty, and whether apologies will be received by the other hon. Members who suffered as a result of that dereliction. How shall we be protected in future? We table questions not only for our interests, but for the interests of the general public and those asking us to make their opinions and voices known.

Madam Speaker: I had some indication of this matter only while I have been in the Chair since 2.30 pm, so I have not been able to follow through any investigations. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that several questions—not only from him but from other hon. Members—were missing. As far as I can understand, this is an unprecedented lapse. I assure him that, as soon as it was noticed, investigations were put under way.
The hon. Gentleman can be assured that, as soon as I have the opportunity this afternoon when I leave the Chair, I shall want to follow through personally on the investigations to see what happened. The hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Members, whose identities I am not aware of at this stage, will certainly receive an apology. We must learn from these mistakes.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the controversy that arose last night as a result of the votes in the House on Monday evening. There appears to have been nothing less than a conspiracy to pervert the outcome of the votes. If such behaviour goes on with impunity, does it not give a green light to people to follow similar practices in future? Surely the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Madam Speaker: Similar points of order have been put to me yesterday and this morning. The Speaker has

no business involving herself in the arrangements between the political parties in the House. It is not the business of the Speaker to become involved in such matters.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At 12.30 pm today, the Leader of the House gave an interim report on the appalling events in Lima last night, saying, among other things, that British subjects could be involved. As the issue involves the safety of embassies around the world and the problems of copycat action, it is a matter of considerable importance, not only to Japan and Peru. Have you received a request from the Government to make a statement on the issues?

Madam Speaker: The direct answer is no, I have not, but of course we still have the day's proceedings to go through. Should the Government feel it necessary or right to make a statement, we can always deal with that later in the day.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker—please excuse my voice. May I express to you, in your role as the much valued and respected protector of all Members of Parliament, my concern about developments in the business of the House over the past 10 days?
On 5 December, reported in column 1203 of Hansard, the Leader of the House said—we appreciate the fact that he now gives us much longer notice of business—that there would be a debate on the Protection from Harassment Bill. It was agreed through the usual channels that the debate would last only one day. That seemed appropriate, because it would have allowed me to attend the inaugural meeting of the Highlands and Islands Convention.
On 12 December, the Leader of the House announced that there would be a debate on the common fisheries policy. I challenged that—as reported in column 425 of Hansard—because every hon. Member from the highlands and islands of Scotland has a clear interest in the common fisheries policy, which has implications for our constituencies. I understand from my investigations that it was subsequently decided through the usual channels that two days would be required to discuss the Protection from Harassment Bill, but I had no notification of that, as a Member of Parliament from the highlands and islands.
I had to make a difficult decision on Monday. Fortunately, there was no fog or frost, and we managed to get back to Westminster via normal channels, without having to charter a Royal Air Force plane, in order to vote.
Would you, Madam Speaker, look at the conflicting responsibilities that are placed on individual Members? The issue did not concern individual constituencies; it was a general issue for all Members of Parliament from the highlands and islands. What action can be taken to ensure that we are never placed in the same ludicrous position again, especially in the light of subsequent events? As you know, I had raised points on the matter in the House before those events occurred.

Madam Speaker: I very well remember the hon. Lady raising the issue in business questions. As she will appreciate, the matter is for the usual channels,


particularly the Leader of the House. I very much understand that some Members have responsibilities—parliamentary, not constituency responsibilities—outside the House. I take to heart what she has said this afternoon, and shall make it my business to talk the Leader of the House to see what can be done, so that hon. Members are not placed in such a position in future.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1996.
Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.
Theft (Amendment) Act 1996.
Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act 1996.
City of Edinburgh Council Order Confirmation Act 1996.
Edinburgh Merchant Company Order Confirmation Act 1996.
Scottish Borders Council (Jim Clark Memorial Rally) Order Confirmation Act 1996.
Western Isles Council (Berneray Causeway) Order Confirmation Act 1996.

BILL PRESENTED

SEX OFFENDERS

Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Forsyth and Mr. David Maclean, presented a Bill to require the notification of information to the police by persons who have committed certain sexual offences; to make provision with respect to the commission of certain sexual acts outside the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 13th January, and to be printed [Bill 66].

Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance)

Mr. David Atkinson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require companies to conduct an audit of the capacity of their computer systems to deal with calendar dates after 31st December 1999 and to report both on those audits and on the actions their directors propose to take in consequence.
The aim of the Bill is to avoid for this country much of the widespread chaos and confusion that it is being increasingly predicted will occur throughout the world at the turn of the century, in just three years' time. I am grateful to hon. Members of all parties who have so willingly offered to sponsor it.
The cause of such Doomsday predictions is the inability of the majority of computer systems to recognise 2000. That is because they use, as we all do, two digits for the year of the date instead of four. Thus, today's date is written as 18/12/96, rather than 18/12/1996.
Unless they are properly reprogrammed, computer systems will recognise 2000 as 1900, or simply reset to some other date. That will mean that they will no longer deliver what they are programmed to deliver, and because so much of our daily lives depend on computers, the result will be, to use a tabloid word, catastrophe. As no one who has looked into the bizarre problem in any detail has so far suggested otherwise, the matter must be of urgent concern to the House.
When the matter was first raised on the Floor of the House in my question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister just a year ago, it was greeted with expressions of ridicule and disbelief. One year later, many written questions to Ministers in every Department, follow-up questions where appropriate, and my Adjournment debate on 6 June have contributed to increasing coverage in specialist computer magazines and the national press.
Many hon. Members are now aware of the issue, and realise that there is a real problem that must be addressed. I especially appreciate the interest of the hon. Members who attended my briefing meeting last Wednesday, and the fact that the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has issued a briefing note, No. 89, on "Computer Systems and the Millennium". That is in the Library, and I recommend it as essential background reading.
The briefing note refers to some of the forecasts of the danger of failure to ensure that computer systems are millennium-compliant. Consequences could include payroll systems collapsing so that workers cannot be paid; financial records losing track of investments; invoicing systems failing to generate bills, or charging 100 years' worth of interest; telecommunications networks failing; and problems with supply in utilities such as gas and electricity.
We must also take into account the possible unpredictable behaviour of embedded microchip systems in places such as elevators, bank vaults and medical equipment, and in Government systems such as those responsible for benefit payments, for maintaining criminal and medical records and for revenue collection.
In response to my Adjournment debate in June, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology talked about the action that the Government were taking on their


computer systems—which are not, of course, the concern of my Bill. He also mentioned the Government initiatives to encourage awareness of the problem in the private sector. Those include establishing TaskForce 2000, in co-operation with the Confederation of British Industry and the Computing Services and Software Association.
My hon. Friend gave the House two especially telling warnings during my Adjournment debate. He said:
some companies will go out of business if they have not tackled the problem, or not ensured that their suppliers have tackled it … it is a management problem that must be dealt with at the top … The Government cannot do it for them. It is no use companies coming to us in 1999 and saying, 'The Government have not fixed it.' The Government did not install the computer software. Failure to deal with the problem could lead to commercial collapse".—[Official Report, 6 June 1996; Vol. 278, c. 818–9.]
My Bill is designed to avoid such commercial collapse. Even responsible companies that have taken the necessary action will find that others with which they have dealings, such as their suppliers, will not have taken action, which will make all those in the supply chain vulnerable to business failure. Truly the chain will be only as strong as its weakest link. I do not believe that all the warning, advising and cajoling in the world will be enough to ensure that the new millennium will begin trouble-free.
Like the Government, I do not want more regulation and red tape to be imposed upon businesses. Some concern has been expressed that my Bill might add to the many burdens that already fall on them. However, it should not add to the burden, because it merely clarifies an existing duty for directors of companies and their auditors to give shareholders in the annual report a true and fair assessment of the company as a going concern for the foreseeable future.
As the future is uncertain, that usually means looking no further than 12 to 15 months ahead. However, the effects of the unique problem that I am talking about can be assessed now, and a view taken on whether the company will be a going concern in the year 2000 if action is not taken now. Indeed, action must be taken now. It will be no use trying to solve the problem in 1999. Most information technology projects take several years to implement, and this will be the largest information technology project that firms will ever have undertaken.
For instance, British Telecom intends to spend hundreds of millions of pounds simply to ensure that its telecommunications system will work in three years' time. Auditors who sign company accounts for the financial

year 1997–98 and beyond will leave themselves liable to legal action by shareholders of firms that go out of business because they did not take action in time.
My Bill is designed to avoid the prospect of huge numbers of legal cases in the new millennium, with costly attempts to determine who is to blame for companies' failure.
The Bill will require companies to conduct audits of the capacity of their computer systems to deal with calendar dates after 31 December 1999 and to report both on the audit and the actions that their directors propose to take in consequence. It is an amendment of the Companies Act 1985, which is the principal company statute in force, and of the duty to prepare a director's report. Both obligations are placed on directors rather than companies.
If the House were to allow me to introduce the Bill today, there may be enough time for it to be given the Royal Assent in the spring, so that it could apply to company reports for the financial years ending in 1998 and 1999. That might be sufficient, with the work of TaskForce 2000 and other initiatives by the private sector and the computer industry, to avoid much of the incalculable chaos that is predicted if too little is done.
I accept that there is a cost to checking computer systems for their millennium compliance but the cost of non-compliance, which may mean going out of business, is far greater. This is a race against time. There are only 750 working days left. The problem is one of the greatest challenges facing business management. Like the change in the millennium, it cannot be avoided. That is why I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mr. Paul Channon, Sir John Cope, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Sir Anthony Durant, Sir Russell Johnston, Sir Dudley Smith, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Stephen Timms, Mr. John Townend and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

COMPANIES (MILLENNIUM COMPUTER COMPLIANCE)

Mr. David Atkinson accordingly presented a Bill to require companies to conduct an audit of the capacity of their computer systems to deal with calendar dates after 31st December 1999 and to report both on those audits and on the actions their directors propose to take in consequence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January, and to be printed [Bill 67].

Orders of the Day — Protection from Harassment Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 17 December].

[SIR GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair]

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. As you know, last night, amendment No. 13 was passed by 179 to 172 votes, to strengthen the Bill. [Interruption.] I apologise, Sir Geoffrey. I think that yesterday the Chairman was adorned with a knighthood perhaps in anticipation of an event this Christmas; I was trying to correct myself.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department applauded our reasons for tabling amendment No. 13 and described its mover, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), as having the best possible motives. The Minister's only objection was that our proposal was akin to punishment and not appropriate to civil courts. In view of that and the passage of the amendment, would it be for the convenience of the Committee for you to invite the Minister to explain the Government's intentions, especially as there is no time between Committee and Report?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Further to that point of order, Sir Geoffrey. It is not the Government's intention to hold up progress on the Bill. We wish it to reach another place as speedily as possible. We will therefore not today seek to overturn the amendment on Report. However, that we are courteous in commenting that Opposition amendments are not "born out of malice", or that we can "see some merit" in them, does not mean that it would be sensible to leave amendment No. 13 in the Bill. The Opposition spokesman should not confuse our customary courtesy in talking about the amendments with an assumption that we believe that there is considerable merit in them.
When we come to Third Reading, I shall explain briefly why we think that the amendment is not sensible. We shall seek in another place to remove it from the Bill, but we do not wish to take any action that would cause any delay to the Bill today.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Sir Geoffrey. Although I welcome the Minister's statement that he does not seek today to reverse the decision on the amendment, I hope that you will acknowledge that the procedures of the House are designed to enable Bills to be amended. Some of the comments by Conservative Members appear to suggest that the Government bring Bills before the House that are totally without fault and incapable of amendment. Were that so, we would not need any of those procedures and the Government would not have to come back with fresh legislation to correct mistakes.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a matter for the Chair.

Clause 3

CIVIL REMEDY

Amendment proposed [17 December]: No. 14, in page 2, line 8, at the end to insert the words—
'(2B) In considering whether to order an injunction in proceedings under this section, a court shall have primary regard to whether such an order is necessary for the protection of what the court considers are the victim's legitimate interests.'.—[Ms Janet Anderson.]
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The First Deputy Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 29, in page 2, line 8, at end insert—
'(2A) Civil proceedings which include a claim under this section for an injunction shall not be referred to arbitration (whether under section 64 of the County Courts Act 1984, or otherwise) without the consent of all the parties to the action.'.
No. 4, in page 2, leave out lines 9 to 24.
No. 25, in clause 8, page 4, line 36, at end insert—
'(5B) In considering whether to order an interdict or interim interdict in proceedings under this section, a court shall have primary regard to whether such an order is necessary for the protection of what the court considers are the pursuer's legitimate interests'.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I thought it right, as a courtesy to you, Sir Geoffrey, and to the Committee, to reappear to continue the speech that I started yesterday evening. I must say, however, that any thoughts that I had on amendments Nos. 14 and 25 have, with the passage of time, become a little cloudy. I cannot quite remember why I was so enthusiastic to address the Committee on them. Furthermore, I notice from the clock that I am due any second to chair the proceedings of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, so the Committee will be pleased to hear that I shall not detain it for long.
I shall detain it only long enough to make the observation that amendment No. 14 requires a court to have
primary regard to whether
an injunction
is necessary for the protection of what the court considers are the victim's legitimate interests.
That seems to me to be nonsense, because it is totally unnecessary. Of course, any civil court considering an injunction will have primary regard to whether an injunction was necessary for the protection of the victim.
Amendment No. 25 invites the Scottish court to have primary regard to
whether such an order is necessary for the protection of what the court considers are the pursuer's legitimate interests".
That is the stalker.

Mr. Beith: It is the plaintiff.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: That just shows the effect that the passage of a few hours and much political activity have upon the mind of even the acutest of lawyers who address hon. Members on such an important matter.
I am bound to conclude that, if the point on the Scottish interest advanced by Opposition Members is the same as that advanced by Opposition Members representing the English and Welsh interest, my observation about amendment No. 14 applies exactly to amendment No. 25. It is unnecessary to remind a court in a civil action for an injunction that its primary obligation is to have regard to the interests of the victim before making such an order.
In the climate of yesterday night, I intended to observe that, as the amendments were totally unnecessary and otiose, they must have been tabled either as probing ones—I understand that that was not the intention—or to waste time. As we are interested in maintaining an even keel between the parties, however, I shall forbear to repeat the observation that I intended to make last evening and satisfy myself with my observation about the totally unnecessary nature of amendments Nos. 14 and 25.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): The debate on this group of amendments has been useful, lively and action-packed.
Amendment No. 14 could be intended to focus the court's mind on the needs of the victim or on the liberty of the defendant; but, either way, the amendment is unnecessary. The court will decide whether to make an injunction on the evidence produced by the victim and the defendant. If it finds that the victim's claim in respect of harassment is made out, it will include in any order that it makes whatever terms are appropriate for the necessary protection of the victim. It will also have in mind the need for any restraints that the order places on the defendant to be reasonable. A defendant who feels that the injunction contains terms that are not necessary for the protection of the victim or that are an unfair restraint may appeal against the order. The amendment therefore adds no benefit to the victim, the defendant or the powers of the court.
Amendment No. 29 seeks to ensure that civil claims in respect of harassment cannot be referred to arbitration without the consent of all parties. Section 64 of the County Courts Act 1984 enables rules to be made requiring the referral of county court cases to arbitration and, technically, harassment cases could be covered by those arrangements. It is, however, impossible to envisage circumstances in which referral to arbitration could be appropriate, because an arbitrator cannot grant an injunction—only the courts can do that.
The consent of the parties to arbitration is a rather hollow condition, because it would clearly be unpalatable to a victim who was seeking an injunction to accept a reference to arbitration. The effect would be to deny the victim's claim without hearing it. I hope that at goes without saying that there is no intention of introducing rules requiring harassment to be dealt with by arbitration, but, because it anticipates circumstances that it is impossible to conceive of, the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 4 is bad. The provisions that it cuts out of the Bill are part of the important protection that we seek to give to victims of harassment. The effect would be to place on the victim's shoulders the responsibility for collecting evidence of the breach and bringing the matter back to court. It may be that, in some cases, the victim would prefer to proceed against a defendant who breached a civil injunction by restoring the proceedings to the civil court and seeking the court's sanction for contempt; but the amendment would make that compulsory.
The amendment would also mean that, as long as the defendant remained at large, the harassment could continue. By contrast, the provisions that the amendment would delete would enable the police to act promptly and decisively on behalf of the victim—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that the tests in civil courts are not nearly as strict as those in the criminal courts? In fact, injunctions can be granted without the person against whom the injunction is being sought being present in court. Is he confident that, under the procedure in the Bill of using a civil injunction and enforcing it through the criminal courts, the rights of the individual to know exactly what is occurring will be protected?

Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, in a criminal court, the test applied is "beyond all reasonable doubt", whereas in the civil courts it is "the balance of probabilities". One of the main reasons for introducing the civil tort is to gain access to that lesser test, so that more victims or potential victims might be protected. I am confident that the courts will always act in a way that protects the civil liberties of those involved in a case.
To return to the sentence that I was halfway through: by contrast, the provisions that the amendment would delete would enable the police to act promptly and decisively on behalf of the victim, to arrest a defendant who breaches an injunction and to investigate the circumstances of that breach and collect the necessary evidence. A defendant who does not breach the court's order has nothing to fear from those provisions, but deleting them substantially diminishes the protection that we want to give to victims.
Amendment No. 25 attempts to do for Scotland what amendment No. 14 would do for England and Wales, but interdict provides good protection for a victim or potential victim. For example, it can prohibit a stalker from taking a specific action, such as writing to the victim. Interdict is a remedy that is well used and familiar both to the courts and to those who need the protection that it can give. As a matter of course, in considering whether to grant interdict or interim interdict, a Scottish court would take fully into account the interests of the victim or potential victim. There is no need to place any further duty on the court, so, like amendment No. 14, amendment No. 25 is unnecessary.
I ask the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) to withdraw her amendment.

Ms Janet Anderson: We have had a useful debate, and it is not our intention to delay the Committee, because we are anxious that the Bill should make speedy progress. When discussing these matters, it is important that we pay particular attention to the interests of victims. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

RESTRAINING ORDERS

Mr. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 17, leave out
'or any other person mentioned in the order'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'or until further order'.

Mr. Bennett: I have two questions. Amendment No. 7 seeks to leave out the words:
or any other person mentioned in the order".
Will that person have to consent to being included in the order?
Amendment No. 8 concerns how long the period should be. Are there not considerable advantages in having specific rather than indefinite periods, and would it not be better to define a period, however long, than to allow the order to run indefinitely?

Mr. Maclean: Amendment No. 7 would limit to victims of an offence defined in clauses 2 or 4 the protection afforded by a restraining order granted by a criminal court. Under the terms of the Bill, a court has the power to make an order to protect not only the victim, but any other person mentioned in the order. The amendment would prevent a court making an order to protect those, other than the victim, whom the court has reasonable grounds for believing that the stalker might attempt to harass. Most obviously, that would exclude from the scope of such an order the family, other co-habitees or close friends of the victim. I believe that we would all agree that that is unacceptable.
We are aware that some stalkers attempt to broaden their campaign of intimidation against a person by also contacting and approaching those whom the victim holds dear. The courts must have the power to protect such people with the restraining order, and, obviously, the courts must be aware that the person who is being protected is concerned and wants that protection.
I shall now discuss amendment No. 8. Clause 5(3) enables a court to make a restraining order for a specified period or until further notice. Allowing the court to make an order until such time as a further order is made is essential for the occasions when a court is not in a position to know, when it makes the order, how long it needs to be in force to have the desired effect.
It is not difficult to envisage such circumstances. If the stalking is extreme, the victim may need to be protected indefinitely. Allowing the courts to make an open-ended order, which clause 5(4) allows, to be discharged on the application of the prosecution, provides maximum flexibility to the courts to make an order for a period tailored to the circumstances of the case, and it prevents unnecessary hassle for the victim in having to return to the courts to have orders renewed—not that there is great expense involved in returning to renew them, but it is an unnecessary hassle, which could be avoided in some cases.

Mr. Bennett: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Following last night's debate, certain issues have been left up in the air and we shall hear more when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. In view of that, it would not be sensible to discuss amendment No. 15, so I do not intend to move it.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

HARASSMENT

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 4, line 11, leave out
', in respect of an actual breach of that subsection,'.
No. 41, in page 4, leave out line 35 and insert
'but a person may not be subjected to the same prohibitions in an interdict or interim'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

EXTENT

Mrs. Helen Liddell: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 7, leave out line 10 and insert—
'(1) Sections 1 and 2 extend to England and Wales and Scotland
(1A) Sections 3 to 7 extend to England and Wales only'.
The purpose of the amendment is to create a separate criminal offence in Scotland, although I regret to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that he views it as a wrecking amendment. That is not our intention at all. We view it as an opportunity to correct some of the shortcomings which have become apparent in Scottish law and which will become even more obvious if the Bill receives Royal Assent and is implemented in England and Wales.
The subject matter of the debate has been gone over extensively in recent weeks in the House, when my hon. Friends the Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) have made broadly similar points in relation to the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. I agree with what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) said last night about the Government stretching the good will of Members of this House to the very limit. We have co-operated to the best of our ability to get the legislation on the statute book as quickly as possible, so it is regrettable that Scottish Office Ministers did not see fit to consult the Opposition on the aspects of the Bill that relate to Scots law. There are nevertheless a number of alterations that we would want to make to the Bill.
The situation in Scotland will be measurably different from that in England and Wales following enactment of the legislation. I should like to draw attention to the great success of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson), whose persistent efforts have ensured that this legislation is before the Committee


today. The problem remains that men and women in Scotland will assume that there is a separate crime of stalking in Scotland even though there will be none.
Much has been made of the fact that the Scottish common law breach of the peace offence is supposedly sufficient to cover the crime of stalking or harassment. It is my contention—and that of a number of the victims of stalking—that that law is not in itself sufficient to deal with the problems created by such harassment. There is a tinge of complacency in the attitude of the Government and of some members of the legal profession when it comes to how the law on breach of the peace can operate in Scotland, and to the penalties that can be handed down as a result.
I stress that it is only because the official Opposition have done all in our power to get the Bill through as quickly as possible that we have managed to come thus far in less than 24 hours; it remains a matter of regret that the Bill's provisions will do little to change the law in Scotland. The Law Society of Scotland has written to the Minister responsible for home affairs and health at the Scottish Office, to say that it has considered the measure
and notes that the Scottish clauses effectively restate, in modern terminology, the existing law which offers protection from harassment by way of assault.
It is important that we look further than the existing law in seeking to protect the victims of harassment in Scotland.
Not being a lawyer myself, I have taken advice from, among others, the university of Strathclyde department of law. I was interested in comments by Professor Alan Miller, a visiting professor at the university of Strathclyde and also the chairman of the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties. Professor Miller is of the view that, in so far as the Bill covers harassment, it does not add to existing remedies already available in Scots law, and he makes the important point—I ask the Committee to reflect on it seriously—that the Bill probably would not be used by practitioners, who would continue to seek interdicts.
I hope that the Minister will respond to Professor Miller's further point that, if the law were used, it would certainly have resource implications for a diminishing civil legal aid budget. The nature of the legislation is to seek civil redress for the person who has been subjected to harassment. The dictum from Dicey that justice is open to all, like the Ritz, applies as much in Scotland as it does south of the border. Those who have resources can take court action: those who do not have resources need to apply for legal aid. We already know that there is what could be described as a crisis in civil legal aid in Scotland. It is the view of the Law Society and of Professor Alan Miller that the Bill would not substantially alter the law in Scotland, and the Bill could also lull people into a false sense of security.
We have also to bear it in mind that one important aspect of the legislation, which has been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members, is its deterrent impact. Many of the people who commit harassment or stalking do not believe that they are doing anything wrong. Some of them are psychologically disordered, but some think that they are doing nothing more than pursuing a vigorous courtship. The distress that they can cause to their victims is considerable and it needs to be made clear to people, by making it a separate offence, that stalking or harassment is an unacceptable form of behaviour. If that were done, it would be of enormous assistance to the police and the

victims. In particular, Victim Support has made it clear that a separate crime would greatly assist the prosecution of those guilty of harassment.
I notice that the Government have drawn attention to the fact that, in Scotland, a specific statutory right to be free of harassment has been created. That right looks nice on paper, but it is the view of the eminent Scottish lawyer Alastair Bonnington, who is a lecturer in criminal procedure, that it is
about as worthwhile as giving a woman a right not to he raped. It is no more than the expression of a pious hope that such conduct will cease.
It is important to give those who are victims of harassment and stalking a clear message that goes beyond a pious hope that such behaviour will end.
Scottish Members will be aware of two significant cases that have appeared before the Scottish courts recently. One relates to Ms Louise Durie, who lives in the Ayrshire village of Waterside and was, for nine months, vigorously pursued by her next-door neighbour. She suffered appalling harassment, as did her partner. The harassment was even made worse when charges were made against Mr. Pickering, who was the harasser, and he was released on bail and returned home to pursue his harassment. Louise Durie's experience was recounted extensively in the Scottish press. She came to believe that Scottish law—and, indeed, English law—should be changed immediately to make stalking a specific criminal offence with heavy penalties, in order to deter those who would make others suffer in the way that she had suffered. Ms Durie said that, although she had been through "months of hell", it appeared that the man involved faced only a short gaol term.
Ms Durie drew attention to the need for her tormentor to undergo a course of counselling—which he did not undertake—as a result of his offences. She recognised that he was in need of some psychological assistance. Ms Durie made a very important point in relation to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who she said
cannot begin to imagine the living hell which victims go through. If he could, then legislation would be through in a flash.
It is often assumed that women are the only victims of stalking and harassment. However, another very important case in Scotland concerns a couple: Professor Reggie von Zugbach and his wife Susanna. They were the victims of a disturbed academic who was jealous of their marriage. In a letter to the von Zugbachs, he wrote:
God has allowed you to go into this marriage with one purpose … namely to break you, because there is no other way.
The perpetrator was arrested in connection with the offences and charged with breach of the peace, but, when a file was returned from the procurator fiscal, it was marked "no further action". As a result of his experiences, Professor von Zugbach—who is an author, a former Army major and a lecturer in management studies at Paisley university—is campaigning for a change in the law governing stalking. If I describe some of the incidents that he suffered, I think that hon. Members will understand why.
Mrs. von Zugbach's ordeal began in 1992 when she rejected an approach from a man she had just met. Shortly after that, in the normal course of such matters, she was bombarded with flowers and threats. It reached the point where she was receiving 100-page letters. She fled to Germany with her husband. While they were in Germany,


on the anniversary of Mrs. von Zugbach's first meeting with the harasser, Professor Zugbach's car was blown up and he was led to believe that the perpetrator was none other than the harasser. Professor von Zugbach has praised the police for their efforts, but he makes it clear that the law in Scotland appears inadequate to deal with cases of alleged stalking. He said:
I used to agree that the breach of the peace laws were sufficient to deal with the problem, but now I realise this is not true".
A major problem with breach of the peace law relates to the nature of the sentences passed. In many cases, severe custodial sentences are required not only as a deterrence but in order to stop someone who will not take no for an answer. However, of the breach of the peace cases that have appeared before Scottish courts in recent years, only 6 per cent. led to custodial sentences. Only two cases appeared before the High Court—the most solemn court, where more significant sentences may be handed down. It is unfortunate that those who suffer harassment and stalking cannot take comfort from the knowledge that their perpetrator will receive a severe sentence.
Like many Scots, I am proud of the nature of the Scottish legal system. However, there is a danger of making breach of the peace a catch-all offence, which is too diverse and lacking in specifics. Similar arguments were advanced when hon. Members discussed the need to introduce vandalism legislation and, as a consequence, it was declared a separate offence.
The many people in Scotland who suffer from harassment are entitled to be reassured that there will be a separate criminal offence that carries clear and distinctive sentences to act as a deterrent and a punishment. That view was put many times by my hon. Friends long before I entered the House. It has been put more widely in the Scottish community, by the police, victims and lawyers involved in such cases.
I urge the Government to accept the amendment. Notwithstanding the pressures to get the Bill through as quickly as possible, the Opposition feel sufficiently strongly about this matter to put the amendment to the vote. I urge the Minister of State to take into account the wide range of opinion in Scotland. This unpleasant and heinous crime should be dealt with seriously so as to make the job of the police much easier, and a more clearly prescribed sentence should be available.

5 pm

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I am a little concerned about the amendment, not because I disagree with the sentiments that have been expressed, but because I wonder whether it is absolutely necessary.
I want to make a few points about breach of the peace generally. At the moment, the definition of a breach of the peace is wide and flexible. People in Scotland can be charged for harassment and stalking under the category of a breach of the peace.
The hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) is right to say that there is a big problem with the general public's perception of the seriousness with which the matter is being dealt with. The difficulty is that a breach of the peace can, in theory, encompass serious as well as minor incidents. However, in practice, the approach has been to charge people who have committed minor

incidents with a breach of the peace, so it is perceived as a minor offence. That is unfortunate, although it could be changed within the terms of existing law. It would require some discussion between those concerned, the Crown Office and the bench to avoid a breach of the peace being merely a bit of shouting and arguing on the street corner, which I suspect is what most people think of as a breach of the peace.
That matter was discussed in the Standing Committee considering the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. A new clause was discussed and subsequently withdrawn. I would have been slightly happier with that new clause, because it was more detailed, related directly to Scotland and was not simply tacked on in this fashion.
As the Minister may remember, in that debate in Committee, I expressed my reservation about a breach of the peace. I realise that I may have to repeat some of what I said in Committee. When an individual is convicted, the judge has before him or her a schedule of previous convictions. The judge will consider those convictions before coming to a view on an appropriate disposal—I suspect that that happens in most cases. The difficulty with a breach of the peace is that it only ever shows as that: there is no specification on the schedule that would alert the judge to conduct that may have begun to develop. That is one of the biggest drawbacks.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I followed up that matter with the Lord Advocate. He has confirmed that it should be possible to include "harassment" in brackets after "breach of the peace" in the schedule of previous convictions. He is actively considering that possibility with a view to implementing it. I shall say more about that later. The hon. Lady's point has been acted on, and is being considered urgently.

Ms Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister for that statement. That will help enormously. One of the difficulties with harassment is that it can be a number of apparently trivial incidents that together cause the problem. If that change were made to the existing practice and procedure, it would make a very big difference. It needs no change in the law to achieve that, but it will allow a judge to assess that crime more seriously. I look forward to hearing from the Minister when that change will take place. In view of his statement, I shall cut short my remarks.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The motive behind the amendment is entirely proper. I do not consider it a wrecking amendment, and if that was said, it was a wholly misplaced comment. However, having spent a little time examining the history of the law of breach of the peace and the current law as presently stated in the most recent codification of the laws of Scotland, I have come reluctantly but firmly to the view that the amendment is misplaced.
When the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) spoke about breach of the peace, she failed to understand the flexibility of the law in Scotland on common law crime, and the extent to which it has developed since its original 18th or early 19th-century formulation. The basis for the use of the crime of a breach of the peace is to allow sufficient flexibility to deal with a range of situations that have as their consequence the


alarm or distress of a number of people or of an individual. I suspect that the problems that the hon. Lady outlined so eloquently are related not to the nature or state of the law, but to the willingness of the police or the procurator fiscal to take proceedings against individuals.
We should also bear in mind the fact that, if we create a such a crime, it will be established only by the use of corroborated evidence. The hon. Lady said that some people may have recourse to an interim interdict. There are good and understandable reasons for that. First, an interim interdict can be obtained before a judge literally at half an hour's notice.
Secondly, it can be obtained on the basis of ex parte statements—the legal representative appears on behalf of the pursuer. I am hopeful that we may at last educate some Conservative Members—the "pursuer" in Scotland is the term used for the person whom they call the "plaintiff". This is supposed to be the United Kingdom, but I am deeply disappointed that some of the Government's Back-Bench Members are not so immersed in the unity of the kingdom that they understand even the most basic terms used in Scottish law.
The representative of the pursuer, by stating a sufficiently forceful case, can obtain an interim interdict. Indeed, it can be obtained outwith the presence of the person against whom it is directed. Furthermore, any breach of an interdict—whether interim or permanent—is a contempt of court, and is capable of being dealt with by fine or imprisonment.
The Minister will recall that we changed the civil evidence rules in Scotland in 1990 when we removed the requirement for corroboration in civil cases. An interim interdict can be obtained on the basis of an ex parte statement at half an hour's notice and without the need for corroboration. It is not surprising that, faced with an urgent case, one adopts that route rather than attempting to invoke the use of the police and a prosecution, because that requires investigation, arrest, appearance in court, committal for trial and all the procedures that follow thereon. There is therefore something to be said for interim interdict.
In two cases—Montgomery v. McLeod 1977. with which I am sure the Minister is more than familiar, and Young v. Heatley 1959—the breadth of the application of the existing crime of breach of the peace is set out succinctly. The former states:
There is no limit to the kind of conduct which may give rise to a charge of breach of the peace. All that is required is that there must be some conduct such as to excite the reasonable apprehension to which we have drawn attention, or such as to create disturbance and alarm to the lieges in fact".
The language is somewhat Victorian; a liege is simply a citizen.
According to the latter case:
Breach of the peace, however, is an offence the limits of which have never been sharply defined. It is so largely in each case a question of circumstances and of degree".
In the course of my researches, I encountered a further case, which, unhappily, is not reported. I refer to Mackie v. McLeod 1961, with which the Minister may also be familiar. The circumstances are interesting. The accused person became infatuated with a young woman whom he hardly knew, and formed the habit of waiting outside her place of employment, looking at her and then following her and her fiancé for some part of their time together.

He was convicted of breach of the peace. An appeal was taken, on the grounds that the facts disclosed in the evidence did not justify the conviction, but the conviction was upheld by the High Court. That may not be the most extreme instance of stalking, but it seems to me to contain substantially the elements of stalking, and I consider it a clear indication that the law has been seen to be adequate to deal with the problem.
As for bail and the particular case to which the hon. Member for Monklands, East referred, it would have been open to the judge in granting bail—I am surprised that this did not happen—to make it a condition of bail that the person granted it did not go back to live next door to the alleged victim. If that condition had been applied and had then been breached, the individual could have been brought back to court, bail could have been revoked and he could have been kept on remand in prison until such time as it was appropriate to deal with his case.
What is significant is not the state of the law but the state of willingness of those responsible for the administration of the law—the police in the first instance, and the procurator fiscal service in the second. That lies at the heart of some of the difficulties outlined by the hon. Lady.
I fear that, if the amendment were passed, it might achieve the opposite of what is intended. At present, if charges are brought under the crime of breach of the peace, there is a degree of flexibility and discretion. Indeed, some argue that the degree of discretion is too great, but that is not an argument that we are considering today. If the crime of harassment is created in Scotland, there may well be cases in which the borderline is drawn in such a way that a person who would otherwise be convicted of breach of the peace will be acquitted of harassment.
Although the hon. Lady's motive is not to be challenged in any way, and despite her obvious concern and the time and trouble that she took in preparing her speech, she has not appreciated the precise nature of the crime of breach of the peace in Scottish law. If the amendment were accepted, it might actually make the conviction of those guilty of harassment more difficult than it is in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made an excellent speech. It is a few years since I acted as his junior counsel in a murder case, which he conducted admirably. I agree with everything that he said. He was right to say that the motive of the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) is good. I have great sympathy with her purpose, but I do not think that amendment No. 27 is the best means of achieving it.
The amendment is unnecessary. In Scotland, any conduct that causes or is likely to cause alarm, annoyance or upset will always be criminal, as the common law offence of breach of the peace. Watching someone, following that person, sending unwanted letters or gifts or attempting to contact the person in any way can give rise to a charge of breach of the peace if the target of such conduct is alarmed, annoyed or upset by it. No statutory offence of harassment is needed.
Breach of the peace is broad and flexible as an offence. Indeed, it is certainly as wide as the lower-level harassment offence that the hon. Lady now seeks to


introduce in Scotland. As a common law offence, it incurs a maximum penalty of life imprisonment following a conviction or indictment in the High Court. The creation of statutory offences with statutory minimum penalties will not enable stalking to be dealt with either more effectively or more severely than it is already dealt with in Scotland. No changes are required to Scottish criminal law in that regard.
5.15 pm
Like the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, I would be concerned about the effect of the amendment on the structure of the criminal law in Scotland. The lower-level offence and the higher-level offence of putting people in fear of violence are part of a package for England and Wales. Importing the lower-level offence to Scotland would result in prosecutions for less serious conduct being brought under the statutory offence, but where more serious conduct was involved, prosecution would have to be brought under the common law. The lower-level offence would be triable summarily, and would involve a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment.
In the debate on the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, the Opposition agreed that the sentencing powers of the sheriff summary court should be increased to allow six months' imprisonment. The lower-level offence would fall squarely within the sheriffs' summary jurisdiction. Its introduction would therefore not result in harassments being taken more seriously, or in the imposition of tougher sentences.
The Bill does not make any changes in Scottish criminal law, because there is no need to do so. The existing law works. In Scotland, any conduct that causes alarm can be dealt with as a breach of the peace. Sentences are at the discretion of the court, but the maximum available penalties for breach of the peace are much greater than those proposed for a statutory offence. Nothing would be gained by creating such an offence.
Stalking is rightly taken very seriously. A circular was issued by the Crown Office to all procurators fiscal to re-emphasise the Lord Advocate's concern that cases of alleged stalking should be accorded priority. It said that careful consideration should be given to the court venue, so that cases are brought on indictment if appropriate, and that all offending behaviour should be libelled, not just the most recent incident.
Breach of the peace is a wide-ranging offence, and that has great advantages. It deals with the most minor offences, which would not warrant custodial sentences, but would also tackle the most serious examples of alarming conduct. Custodial sentences are imposed. In a three-year period between 1992 and 1994, 3,063 people received such sentences for breach of the peace. That shows that it is certainly not a trivial offence for which everyone gets just a slap on the wrist.
The hon. Lady raised the Durie case. I cannot agree with her suggestion that the existence of a statutory offence would have resulted in that case being treated more seriously. Summary proceedings were taken, which meant that the sheriff could impose up to three months' imprisonment. Once the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill is enacted, that will increase to six

months—the same maximum penalty as for the lower-level harassment offence. Since the Durie case, new powers have come into existence for the Lord Advocate to appeal against sentences that are too lenient.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) raised an important point in the Committee stage of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill about persons who had a history of harassment that was not shown adequately in a schedule of previous convictions. I told her that I would follow that up with the Lord Advocate. It should be possible to record such a conviction as a breach of the peace, with "harassment" added in brackets. I understand that there are precedents for that: "theft" can have "shoplifting" added in brackets after it, so that, if someone is continually involved in shoplifting, that will be picked up. It should be possible to note that harassment has been involved in breach of the peace offences so that appropriate disposals will be made in the event of a long history of offending.
I applaud the aim of the hon. Member for Monklands, East but in all respects the offence of breach of the peace is adequate to deal with stalking and harassment, and I must resist her amendment.

Mrs. Liddell: I am sorry that the Minister does not see fit to accept the amendment. One of the great advantages of being a Member of the House is that we are enabled as taxpayers to get the benefit of distinguished legal advice free of charge. I greatly appreciate the remarks by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).
The Minister did not refer to the fact that there is a blurring between the use of civil and criminal remedies in the existing legislation. Without a clearly defined criminal offence, women and others who suffer from harassment will have to have recourse to the civil remedy. The cost of doing that and the crisis in civil legal aid could greatly inhibit opportunities to achieve redress. While I do not wish unnecessarily to delay the Committee, I should like the amendment to be put to the vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 121, Noes 210.

Division No. 33]
[5.20 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clapham, Michael


Alen, Graham
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Austin-Walker, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barnes, Harry
Connarty, Michael


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dalyell, Tam


Berry, Roger
Darling, Alistair


Blair, Tony
Davidson, Ian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dobson, Frank


Burden, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Byers, Stephen
Eagle, Ms Angela


Caborn, Richard
Ennis, Jeffrey


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fisher, Mark


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Derek






Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Gapes, Mike
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie


George, Bruce
Mudie, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mullin, Chris


Gordon, Ms Mildred
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Olner, Bill


Grocott, Bruce
Pope, Greg


Gunnell, John
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Hall, Mike
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hardy, Peter
Quin, Ms Joyce



Raynsford, Nick


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hoey, Kate
Rooker, Jeff


Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ruddock, Ms Joan



Hoyle, Doug
Sheldon, Robert


Hutton, John
Short, Clare


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Skinner, Dennis


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Keen, Alan
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Khabra, Piara S
Spearing, Nigel


Kilfoyle, Peter
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Strang, Dr Gavin


Livingstone, Ken
Straw, Jack


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Timms, Stephen


McAllion, John
Tipping, Paddy


McAvoy, Thomas
Watson, Mike


Macdonald, Calum
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


McFall, John
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


McLeish, Henry
Winnick, David


McNamara, Kevin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McWilliam, John
Worthington, Tony


Madden, Max



Mahon, Mrs Alice
Tellers for the Ayes:



Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Mr. John Cummings and


Michael, Alun
Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cash, William


Alexander, Richard
Channon, Paul


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Chidgey, David


Alton, David
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Ashdown, Paddy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Davies, Quentin (Stamf d)


Bates, Michael
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beggs, Roy
Dover, Den


Beith, A J
Duncan, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Booth, Hartley
Elletson, Harold


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bowis, John
Evennett, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Faber, David


Brazier, Julian
Fabricant, Michael


Bright, Sir Graham
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brooke, Peter
Fishbum, Dudley


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forman, Nigel


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burns, Simon
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Burt, Alistair
Foster, Don (Bath)


Butcher, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Butler, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
French, Douglas


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Gallie, Phil


Carttiss, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George





Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Garnier, Edward
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gill, Christopher
Molyneaux, Sir James


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Nelson, Anthony


Goodlad, Alastair
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Newton, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Gummer, John
Norris, Steve


Hague, William
Onslow, Sir Cranley


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hampson, Dr Keith
Ottaway, Richard


Harris, David
Paice, James


Harvey, Nick
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Hawkins, Nick
Pawsey, James


Hawksley, Warren
Porter, David


Hayes, Jerry
Powell, William (Corby)


Heald, Oliver
Redwood, John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rendel, David


Hendry, Charles
Richards, Rod


Heseltine, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Higgins, Sir Terence
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Rowe, Andrew


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Shepherd, Sir Cohn (Heref d)


Howard, Michael
Sims, Sir Roger


Howell, David (Guildf d)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Speed, Sir Keith


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Sproat, Iain


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Stanley, Sir John


Jessel, Toby
Steel, Sir David


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Steen, Anthony


Johnston, Sir Russell
Stephen, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stern, Michael


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Streeter, Gary


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Sweeney, Walter


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


King, Tom
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Thomason, Roy


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Kynoch, George
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Thurnham, Peter


Lamont, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Trotter, Neville


Legg, Barry
Twinn, Dr Ian


Leigh, Edward
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Waldegrave, William


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Walden, George


Lidington, David
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Lilley, Peter
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lord, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Luff, Peter
Watts, John


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


MacKay, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Maclean, David
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Maclennan, Robert
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


McLoughlin, Patrick
Willetts, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Malone, Gerald
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfld)


Mans, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Marland, Paul
Yeo, Tim


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)



Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tellers for the Noes:



Merchant, Piers
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As it now appears that British personnel are involved in the siege in Lima, and following what Madam


Speaker said about my point of order earlier today, may I ask yet again whether there has been any hint from the Foreign Office that it will make a statement?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Certainly the occupant of the Chair has not been informed of any intention to make a statement now.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 7, line 12, after 'Act' insert
'(except section (Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland))'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 2—Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kirkhope: The consultation period on the paper "Stalking in Northern Ireland" ended on 2 December. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to know that, as all responses broadly supported the introduction of legislation, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland.
There are differences between the current criminal and civil legislation for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland, and the new clause therefore permits the Bill's replication in Northern Ireland by negative resolution. If legislation were to be by affirmative resolution, there would for some time be a gap in the legislation between the jurisdictions, for which, given the vulnerability of the victims that the Bill is designed to protect, we might be criticised. New clause 2 puts into effect the request by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the Bill be replicated for Northern Ireland under the negative resolution procedure.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's words in introducing the amendment. We have had the time since the Loyal Address to refer to the fact that we believe that the Bill should be extended to Northern Ireland. I understand some of the difficulties in legislating for other parts of the kingdom, which were obvious in the debate on amendment No. 27, and I also understand that there are people in Northern Ireland who keep telling us that the differences in legislation make it difficult to do so, but they do not make it impossible. I appreciate that steps have been taken to fill that gap so that we might go forward fairly quickly together.

Mr. Kirkhope: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I am sure that he was involved in the consultation on "Stalking in Northern Ireland" and that he and his colleagues will be pleased. We are, of course, delighted to do what we can to make the Bill applicable there.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 2

CORRESPONDING PROVISION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

'. An Order in Council made under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule I to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 which contains a statement that it is made only for purposes corresponding to those of sections 1 to 7 and 12 of this Act—

(a) shall not be subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) of paragraph 1 of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament), but
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Maclean.]


Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

POWERS OF COURT TO PROTECT VICTIMS DURING TRIALS

'. In any proceedings under this Act, where it appears to the court that distress is being caused to any person who may have been the victim of any act of harassment to which this Act applies by reason of the decision of the person accused of that act of harassment to represent himself in those proceedings, it may require the person accused of the act of harassment to be legally represented.'.—[Ms Janet Anderson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Janet Anderson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause's purpose is to highlight a problem about which the Minister and I have corresponded. It concerns the arrangements for defendants to cross-examine witnesses in person.
Recently, two cases aroused particular public concern. The first involved Julia Mason, who was cross-examined for six days by the man who was eventually found guilty of raping her.
The second case was that of Margaret Bent, to whom I have already referred. Margaret was cross-examined by her alleged stalker, Dennis Chambers. At the time of the case, the National Association of Victim Support Schemes called for the victims of domestic or sexual violence or similar cases to have the right not to be examined by the accused. In view of what happened to Margaret Bent, I should be grateful if the Minister would give us a progress report on the deliberations in which I know that his Department is engaged.

Mr. Maclean: The new clause would give the court discretion in any proceedings under the Act to require a person accused of an act of harassment to be legally represented if it appears to the court that distress is caused to the victim of that harassment by reason of the accused representing himself.
The Government recognise that serious concerns have arisen from the recent cases in which victims of rape and stalking offences have been caused enormous distress by being cross-examined by defendants who are not legally represented and who appear to take the opportunity during the cross-examination to make the victims relive some of the horrendous experiences they have endured. We find that unacceptable. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced in a speech in October that he was determined to ensure that it was prevented. A review of the law covering this matter is under way.
Depriving a defendant of the right to represent himself if he chooses to do so is a serious matter, and there are some complex issues to consider carefully, including the range of offences to which such measures might apply. Confining it to proceedings relating to harassment alone, which is what the new clause would do, would not meet the concerns of one of the rape victims about whom we heard earlier and would not cover the case that gave rise to the most concern. There are also other serious offences to which this provision would sensibly apply.

Mr. Bennett: Can the Minister tell us the timetable for the review?

Mr. Maclean: No, I cannot. The review is being conducted as speedily as possible. I have not set an artificial time scale, but we want the answers as soon as possible. It is not an easy thing to do. The mischief—I use that word in its technical legal sense—or the evil, which is a more colloquial word, caused by the comments and behaviour of those representing themselves is a complex thing to try to prevent. The damage that we want to prevent is simple to describe, as is the concept, but the practical issues are tricky.

Mr. Michael Stephen: I can well understand that depriving a defendant of the opportunity to be represented at all would be a very serious matter. However, many people within and outside the House of Commons would think that to tell a defendant that he must be represented by a lawyer would not be such a serious deprivation and would not outweigh the right of the complainant not to be subjected to the indignity that the two unfortunate women to whom the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) referred had to endure.

Mr. Maclean: I have heard my hon. Friend's point of view; he is experienced in these matters. If we propose taking away the right of defendants to represent themselves, we have to be careful how we do it, in what cases we do it and where we draw the line. It could be a slippery slope towards removing the right of defendants to represent themselves in quite the wrong cases.
When we reach our preliminary conclusions, we will discuss them with the Law Society and the Bar Council, but we are not at that stage yet. We wish to make progress as quickly as possible. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I and all right-thinking people were appalled at the way in which one defendant in particular behaved in the rape cross-examination. We would all like to stamp out such mischief, overnight if possible, but as I have said, this is a complex area of law.
We fully understand the concerns that lie behind the new clause. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) intends to insist that this should be built into the Bill for harassment only. When we find a solution to the problem, we want it to apply to a sensible and coherent range of measures. There may be a range of offences where we would want to make some changes, if we conclude that change is possible and can be done sensibly.
I hope that the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen will withdraw the motion and accept my assurance that the Government wish to move as speedily

as possible. We want to reach a sensible conclusion, which, we hope, will be acceptable to most of those in the profession and the judiciary, which will not infringe anyone's rights or take away justice and which victims will find bearable.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister's account of these matters is well judged and appropriate. If one is to innovate on the constitutional right of any individual to defend himself or herself, one must be certain that it is entirely justified. I have not had the benefit of reading the transcripts of the two trials to which reference was made. However, in my experience, which is perhaps becoming increasingly outdated and is confined to Scotland, any effort at repetitious or offensive cross-examination from an individual defending himself or herself was almost always dealt with extremely severely by the judge. The point at which it becomes offensive is a fine judgment to make, but, for most people, the offensive nature of the two cases to which we have referred must have been evident to all who were participating. I am a little surprised that the judges did not feel able to take what one might regard as a firmer hand.

Mr. Maclean: It may help the hon. and learned Gentleman if I tell him that reading the transcript would not give a full account of the offensiveness. In one case, the defendant wore identical clothes to those he wore during the rape and deported himself in a similar way. The transcript does not give the full picture of the evil that he was committing in the court.

Mr. Campbell: There is no substitute for being present in the case. One often reads reports of cases in which one has been involved which seem to bear little resemblance to reality. I accept that there is a problem, and my only question is why a firmer hand was not taken. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor should issue some clearer directives on what is permissible.

Mr. Stephen: rose—

Mr. Campbell: I must make progress, because I know that the Committee is of that mind.
There are some instances in which the accused commences the case being represented but, as the case progresses, it becomes impossible for his or her legal representatives to continue, either because the nature of the instructions changes dramatically and puts the professional position of the legal representative in jeopardy or because the instructions change so as to suggest an approach that does not amount to a defence in law. If legal representatives have withdrawn, it might be difficult to force the appointment of other legal representatives, who might find themselves faced with the same problem.
There might be almost a pantomime: the case would be adjourned so that fresh counsel could be instructed and that fresh counsel would turn up the following morning saying, "We have had a consultation with the accused, but, unfortunately, we are unable to represent him." Such circumstances could bedevil proceedings in a way that would not add to the dignity of the court.
There are complicated issues involved in not just the constitutional principle but the practicality of making a rule such as that proposed in the new clause. I hope that the motion is not pressed to a Division, because I do not believe that, in the present state of our knowledge and the consultation, we would be able to reach an informed decision.

Mr. Stephen: The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) mentioned cases in which judges deal quickly and decisively with defendants who represent themselves and break the rules of procedure. Like him, I have some experience in the courts, and I fear that, in many such cases, judges are reluctant to interfere with the conduct of a defence by a defendant in person lest that be used as a ground of appeal leading to a subsequent hearing in the Court of Appeal.
On the hon. and learned Gentleman's other point—if the defendant were to run a defence that is not a defence in law—there is no more reason for allowing him to run that defence in person than if he were represented by a lawyer.

Ms Janet Anderson: This is obviously a very difficult issue, and we have no intention of pressing the motion to a Division—although I am grateful for having had the opportunity to air the subject. I am also grateful to the Minister for his concern about the problem. We are thankful that his Department is conducting its review, and we look forward to a speedy response. We hope that it will be possible to do something to end the type of problem experienced by those women.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in yesterday's debate on Second Reading that the Bill had one simple aim: to protect the victims of harassment. The Bill aims to give that protection, not by defining activities that are known as stalking—as we believe that such a definition will inevitably omit some activities that are distressing, or worse, to victims—but by focusing on the harm inflicted on the victim. That harm is harassment. The benefits of proceeding in such a manner are that all forms of harassment—whether stalking, racial abuse, neighbour or work disputes—are covered.
As I listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), I was tempted to say that I wish that I had the benefit in England of Scotland's breach of the peace provisions, about which I learned many years ago.
The Bill adopts a twin-track approach by using the civil and criminal law, both of which have a part to play in providing effective remedies to combat harassment. The new concept of a restraining order that will be available

to criminal courts on conviction is a major step forward and has been welcomed by those campaigning on the issue.
The Opposition agreed to co-operate with the Government to pass the Bill without delay. We have made some good progress today, and I am delighted with the support and assistance that we have received today. It is a matter of regret that we got a bit bogged down yesterday and that the Bill was amended in a manner that is unacceptable to the Government and absolutely unworkable in practice. We will have to take a little time in another place to put the Bill back on the straight and narrow.
Sentencing is a matter for the criminal courts, and conditions of treatment attached to sentences are a matter for them. We believe that they have ample powers to order treatment, which might be probation, intensive therapy or counselling. I believe that counselling is of value only when it is entered into voluntarily and willingly. People seek counselling, but they cannot be forced into it. Moreover, civil courts do not sentence people at all but are a forum for the resolution of disputes. However, that issue can be addressed in another place.

Mr. George Howarth: The Minister said that counselling is effective only if it is undertaken on a voluntary basis. He should examine some of the programmes for prisoners run by the Prison Service. Prisoners are required to attend those programmes, which often achieve very good results among those who have attended on a non-voluntary basis.

Mr. Maclean: We do not want to get into that debate now; I merely say that there is a world of difference between the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes and prisoners whose entitlement to parole or early release depends on their participating in the prison regime and other activities, such as drying out from drug dependency. Technically, attending such a programme in prison may be voluntary, but prisoners believe that, if they do not attend, they will not be granted parole. There is a sanction in prison that will not be replicated in the outside world, particularly through civil courts. However, let us not discuss that issue on Third Reading.
We will continue to place the safety and protection of the British people at the top of our agenda for action. The Bill is one of a number of measures that the Government have recently introduced in the House or in another place that, when enacted, will make the United Kingdom a safer and a better place in which to live. As I said earlier, I have no wish to delay the Bill further. The Government have set out clearly our objections to the Opposition's amendment, and we have stated our intention to put the Bill right in the other place. Victims of stalking and of other forms of harassment should not have their hopes of protection put at risk by any further delay or unnecessary amendments to the Bill.
I believe that the Bill will provide victims of harassment with the protection that they need. The Bill's provisions strike the right balance between the need to give reassurance and protection to victims and the need not to constrain legitimate activity, whether it is the action of journalists, private investigators, debt collectors or, of course, politicians.
With the caveat that I have mentioned, I commend this excellent Bill to the House.

Ms Janet Anderson: The Opposition had always intended to be fully co-operative on the Bill, because, like the Minister and Conservative Members, we recognise the need to bring relief to the victims of stalking as quickly as possible. The intention of our amendments, therefore—despite what some hon. Members may think—was not to obstruct. I should tell the Minister that, had we intended to be obstructive, we would have pushed our definition to a Division. We chose not to do so, because we wanted to facilitate the Bill's passage. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust agreed that our amendments were intended to improve the Bill, and that was their intention.
As the Minister has mentioned yesterday's events, I should mention the reason for what we did. Criminal courts already have powers—which have been confirmed and backed by the Government—to provide counselling to confront offenders' criminal behaviour. However, as the Bill is drafted, that power would arise only when an injunction was breached—when a defendant resumed his stalking—and would be dealt with only by applying the much higher burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt. As we know, many stalkers are obsessive, and firm action to confront their offending behaviour may have to be taken as quickly as possible. The threat of imprisonment is also necessary if victims are to be properly protected.
That is why, last night, the Opposition moved amendment No. 13, to provide county courts with power to order counselling when making an anti-stalking injunction. In moving the amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said:
We mean not some pleasant chat over a cup of tea … but the sort of counselling that forces offenders to face up to their offending behaviour".—[Official Report, 17 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 838.]
The Minister claimed in his speech that our amendments were unworkable. I refer him to the leader page of tonight's Evening Standard, which rightly states:
Tony Blair, promised to cooperate with the Home Secretary in getting
the Bill
through the House without delay",
and that the Home Secretary
is now accusing Labour of going back on its word by putting up amendments to the Bill which would clarify what it means by harassment.

The Evening Standard goes on to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Labour counterpart
is right to insist on scrutiny. Mr. Howard's Bill, like so much of the legislation which has emerged from the Home Office during his tenure, shows signs of clumsy and over-hasty drafting.
I hope that the Minister will accept that we tabled our amendments with the best of intentions, and we hope that Ministers will give them—particularly the amendment that the House passed last night—serious consideration.
Having said that, we wish the Bill well and a speedy passage through the other place. I am sure that the thousands of victims of stalking, and those in other categories whom the Minister claims the measures will help—such as those in neighbour or racial disputes—will be greatly relieved when it reaches the statute book.

Mr. Bennett: I, too, hope that the Bill turns out to be a good one, but I have to put down certain markers. I fear that, with the Government not prepared to commit any new resources, the legislation may not be enforced as effectively as the House would like. It is not reasonable to expect the police to be able to give the necessary time and attention to harassment cases in particular without there being resourcing implications. We should be worried about passing legislation without providing the necessary resources.
We should also ask whether the House did a proper job of scrutiny. I fear that we shall find that the Bill does not protect all those whom we want to protect. We may well find that one or two people whom we did not intend to be caught by the legislation will be. The lessons for the House must he that, although all-party co-operation is a good idea, it should not shorten proper scrutiny. I do not think that the Floor of the House is the proper place for detailed scrutiny. Even though we were trying to get the measure through House quickly, it would have been far better to send the Bill to a Standing Committee, even if the Committee had had to sit for long hours to carry out the scrutiny effectively. I hope that the legislation works, but, when the House looks back on this day and a half, I do not think that we will believe that we carried out our scrutiny role effectively.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third Time, and passed.

National Heritage Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill extends the powers of the trustees of the national heritage memorial fund on the projects that they can fund and the recipients eligible for funding.
As the House will know, the NHMF trustees distribute the heritage share of the national lottery proceeds. Our aim is to build on the existing success of the lottery as a source of funding for the national heritage. We are keen that everyone should be able to appreciate and benefit from that heritage. We want lottery money to be used to enhance opportunities for people—especially the young—to have ready access to our heritage, to learn about it and to enjoy it. We also want to ensure that any worthwhile heritage project can be considered for lottery funding, with no artificial barriers.
Under the existing legislation, which predates the advent of the lottery, the NHMF trustees can fund only those projects that involve the acquisition, maintenance or preservation of tangible heritage assets. Of course, that gives the NHMF plenty of scope to support worthwhile projects, and it is taking full advantage of those opportunities.
However, because of the current terms of the legislation, the NHMF's role as a lottery distributor is more restricted than the Government and the trustees wish. The NHMF cannot, for instance, offer funds for projects that promote access to our heritage or enhance understanding and enjoyment of it. It cannot assist in the development of heritage skills, and is limited in its ability to support nature conservation work.
We want to lift those constraints. We want the NHMF to back heritage projects comparable with those that other lottery distributors are supporting in their sectors.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister be specific about the inhibitions on undertaking conservation work? My understanding is that the national heritage memorial fund has been very good about supporting New Hailes, near Edinburgh, which is really a conservation project.

Mr. Sproat: Perhaps I could come back to the hon. Gentleman on that project. The fund exists mainly to acquire, preserve and maintain tangible objects. Conservation can be part of preservation, therefore falling within the fund's current remit, but the NHMF trustees have been uneasy about any project that strays too far from the acquisition, preservation and maintenance of tangible objects. However, I shall look into the New Hailes example and see exactly how it was dealt with.
The choice of projects is, of course, a matter for the NHMF trustees. However, the trustees and the Government are clear that our heritage offers ample scope for the NHMF to undertake a wider role than is at present legally possible.
Projects that the trustees might want to consider funding could include the assignment of a professional educationist to a heritage site to train staff and produce

material for use by school parties, the use of information technology to develop a virtual reality programme showing how a cathedral developed over time, or a training scheme for a heritage-related skill—be it stained glass conservation or hedge laying.
We also want the NHMF to be able to support projects that enhance understanding of our national history or landscape, independently of its tangible remains.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Together with other members of the Environment Select Committee, I visited the natural history museum this morning. The nation can be justly proud of the enormous collection held there—the largest in the world—of specimens from the natural world, and of the high-quality scientific research that goes on there. We were shown the efforts made by the museum to put its specimens on computer disk, and to make its collection available to all the scientists in the world through the Internet. I am sure that the museum will welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the availability of money for information technology projects.

Mr. Sproat: I am glad that my hon. Friend visited the natural history museum, which is one of the finest natural history museums in the world, if not the finest. Anyone who has not discovered how many angles a beetle can be seen from with information technology would not believe it. The natural history museum is far advanced in such matters. I am sure that other museums will take up similar technology in a major way.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill will enable the Victoria County History of England, which is a national project, to apply for lottery funding?

Mr. Sproat: I shall come to that in just a second. You yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, played an important role in that project. I shall deal with it in a few sentences. I ask my right hon. Friend to contain himself.
We have identified three types of project that fulfil the purpose that I mentioned. The first is an exhibition on a particular aspect of our history. Examples might be a museum exhibition on the life and work of an important figure in history or on the ecology of a particular region. The second is the creation of an archive—for instance, an oral record of the distinctive experiences of particular localities or groups. The third—this was identified during the Bill's passage through another place—is a major work of reference such as the Victoria County History.
The answer to my right hon. Friend is yes. I want to pay particular tribute to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that is not a creepy thing to do, because your great work and valuable advice enabled us to include the project in the Bill. All those who value the county histories pay great credit to your work.

Mr. William Cash: Perhaps I should declare an interest, because my hon. Friend probably does not know that, together with Denis Mahon and others, I drafted the National Heritage Act 1980, which led to this Bill. Having read the Bill, I congratulate the Minister on it. We are now moving the national heritage memorial fund towards history and school projects, to enable people


to relate the written word to our history and monuments. The Bill is tremendous, and the Minister deserves every conceivable congratulation on it.

Mr. Sproat: This is a big evening for congratulations. I thank my hon. Friend for his. It is a tribute to his original work on the 1980 Act that the new Bill is so short. He deserves credit for that.
The first of the Bill's two main elements is the opening up of the NHMF's statutory terms of reference to embrace a much wider range of worthwhile heritage projects. The second element concerns who is eligible for assistance from the NHMF. Existing legislation permits the NHMF to offer financial assistance only to public and charitable bodies that have been established for a specific heritage purpose.
That remit, of course, takes in much that is at the very heart of our heritage, but it rules out a great many potentially worthwhile projects. In built heritage alone, more than two thirds of historic buildings are privately owned. As the law stands, those buildings are outside the NHMF's terms of reference and therefore cannot be considered for lottery funding.
When the National Heritage Committee examined the national lottery earlier this year, the NHMF, English Heritage and other bodies all argued that limiting eligibility for lottery funding in such a way works against the best interests of heritage, and that the restrictions on eligibility should therefore be removed. The Select Committee agreed with that view, and so do the Government. We believe that ownership of property should not determine whether a project is eligible for lottery support. What matters is whether the project has heritage merit and will be for the public good.
There have been suggestions that the purpose of the proposal is simply to enable lottery money to reach the owners of historic country houses, but privately owned heritage includes buildings of almost every kind. There is considerable scope for the lottery to support heritage projects, such as historic townscape schemes as an element of urban regeneration, or conservation projects in the countryside. A number of such projects have already received lottery awards, but the NHMF has often been unable to help because much of the property concerned is privately owned.
Nor, of course, is the proposal confined to historic buildings. The new approach to eligibility will also apply, for example, to museums, land and artefacts owned by private individuals. There is of course nothing new about making public funds available for the benefit of privately owned heritage property. For many years, English Heritage and other bodies have been running grant schemes for historic buildings of outstanding quality, irrespective of ownership. Grants are subject, quite properly, to stringent conditions on matters such as public access, and there is provision for the means testing of applicants and for clawback of funds if necessary. The NHMF trustees accept that, if lottery grants are to be given to private owners of heritage property, such rigorous safeguards will be required.
There has also been concern that the Government's aim in extending the NHMF's funding remit is to enable lottery money to replace core funding for heritage, thus going back on our undertaking that lottery money would be additional to existing expenditure programmes.

The immediate response to such concern is to point to the extremely favourable public expenditure settlement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has achieved for heritage bodies in the next financial year.
Museums and galleries, for instance, have been granted an additional £3 million over previous plans. An additional £1.8 million will be available to English Heritage. Those figures testify to the Government's determination to protect core funding in priority areas of heritage.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister will know of the British museum's concern about the terrible dilemma of either paying off staff or being faced with charging for entrance, which for very good reasons they are exceedingly reluctant to undertake. Can he really he so complacent about the position?

Mr. Sproat: Not a tremor of complacency had entered my voice on the matter. The devastating report on the finances, organisation, management and general efficiency of the British museum came not from the Government but from an independent report that was commissioned by the trustees. It was in that report that the suggestion was made that imposing entry charges was one way in which to make up the shortfall that arose from—not to put it too disagreeably—the not wholly adequate running of the finances and organisation of the British museum in past years. The Government did not say that. The Government do not encourage or discourage charging.
Some museums, such as the British museum, do not charge, but others, such as the natural history museum, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) visited today, the science museum, the imperial war museum and the maritime museum not only charge but are extremely glad that they have done so.
If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) talked to Sir Neil Cossons, Neil Chalmers or Robert Crawford, or went to the maritime museum, he would find that they very much wish to keep a charging policy. That is up to them, just as it is up to the British museum's trustees to decide whether they want to charge. They have not looked after the finances as well as they might have liked, and if they can find another way in which to put finances back on a sound basis without going in for charging, that is fine; so be it. No pressure will come from the Government.
It would be interesting to know whether, if they were ever in power, the Opposition intend to abolish such charges, and if so, where they would get the money to make up for the charges that currently help the science museum, the natural history museum, the maritime museum, the imperial war museum, and so on.
The Government stand by our undertaking that lottery money will not replace existing funding. That of course does not mean that, in areas where lottery funding is available, expenditure programmes are immune from the constraints applying to public spending generally. Nor does it prevent lottery money from complementing other funding. In the heritage sector, it is entirely right that projects that are beyond the scope of English Heritage's grant programmes, generous as that is—in terms of either eligibility or affordability—should be able to be considered for lottery funding.
What is important is that there should be agreed strategies on the role of the lottery in relation to other heritage programmes, so that the available funds can be applied where they are needed. With that in mind, the NHMF is having discussions with English Heritage and other bodies on future funding priorities in the light of the new powers conferred by the Bill.
I turn to the Bill's specific provisions. Clause 1 redefines the funding powers of the NHMF trustees, as set out in section 3 of the National Heritage Act 1980, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) helped to draft. There are three main changes. First, the NHMF's remit is extended beyond simply the acquisition, maintenance or preservation of land, buildings or objects of importance to national heritage. Under the Bill, the NHMF will also be able to support projects that encourage study, understanding and enjoyment of heritage, promote access to heritage, or develop skills relating to heritage.
Secondly, there is a new power for the NHMF to fund specified types of project which relate to important aspects of the United Kingdom's history, natural history or landscape, and which the trustees consider are of public benefit. That power encompasses exhibitions, archives and comprehensive works of reference, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) referred.

Sir Donald Thompson: All over the country in the 1920s, war memorials were erected by public subscription. Some of them belong to local authorities, and many are onerous burdens. Will the Bill enable those war memorials to be looked after properly, providing, of course, that the correct procedures are followed?

Mr. Sproat: I hope so. My hon. Friend raises a very important point, which we shall perhaps be able to go into in rather more depth in Committee when we consider particular examples.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned New Hailes. The NHMF has been able to support the acquisition of New Hailes by the National Trust for Scotland, because the National Trust is a public body. If the present owner of New Hailes had sought help from the NHMF for repairs to the building—the hon. Gentleman mentioned conservation, which might just fall under the remit of repairs, I suppose—she would not have been able to receive funding. It is in part to allow such added discretion for the trustees that we have introduced the Bill. It would have been possible to help New Hailes under the Bill even had it not been for the acquisition by the National Trust for Scotland.
Secondly, there is a new power for the NHMF to fund specified types of project that relate to an important aspect of the United Kingdom's history, and so on, including the comprehensive works of reference that I have already mentioned.
Thirdly, the current list of recipients eligible for NHMF funding will disappear. Instead, the NHMF will be able to support any project that the trustees consider is of importance to the national heritage and of public benefit.
Clause 2 repeals existing provisions that require the NHMF to obtain departmental and Treasury approval for the payment of allowances to trustees and for certain staffing matters. We propose to table one small amendment to clause 2, which will concern the remuneration for NHMF trustees.
It is arguable that the work involved in assessing lottery applications is approaching the point at which it becomes unreasonable to ask trustees to give their time unpaid. We do not intend to make any immediate decisions about that. However, the NHMF is virtually alone among lottery distributors in that its trustees are precluded by statute from receiving substantive remuneration. We want to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to remove the current statutory bar. The current chairman has made it clear that he would not wish to make use of the change to receive remuneration himself.
I am confident that the Bill will be welcomed by all hon. Members with an interest in our country's incomparable heritage. It will effectively bring the whole of the heritage within reach of lottery funding, it will ensure that resources are deployed where they are most needed, and it will open the door to a range of exciting new projects—projects not only to preserve the heritage but also to help deepen our understanding of it and enhance our enjoyment of it.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Mark Fisher: We welcome the Bill, which has the Opposition's general support. Lord Donoughue, on behalf of the Opposition, made clear our support in the excellent debate in the other place. We accept the case that the Minister has made for augmenting and widening the powers of the national heritage memorial fund and the heritage lottery fund trustees so as to give greater flexibility in the operation of the two funds.
At present, those funds are circumscribed by the fact that they are charged only with acquisition, maintenance and preservation, so a lot of imaginative opportunities are being missed. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) made a good point about memorials, which are much loved in communities throughout the country, and constitute an extraordinary record of our history and of the sacrifices that communities have made on behalf of this country. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is an organisation that cares for memorials, but it is hugely underfunded, and relies purely on charitable money.
It is precisely such projects that will now be eligible because of the wider powers, and we look forward to exploring that aspect of the Bill in committee. Such opportunities are being missed at present, and the Bill properly opens the possibilities for their inclusion. That is one of the reasons why we welcome it.
We are enthusiastic about some of the specific powers, especially those concerning wider access. As we understand it, matters such as the cost of transport for school groups to sites, and the pricing policy of some heritage sites, would become eligible for assistance as a result of the Bill. The educational work of schools, youth initiatives and training in heritage-related skills, perhaps by means of bursaries, will be included So will the important issue of information technology, to which the Minister alluded briefly, and which we shall explore


in Committee. That will arise in connection with access to the great archives of this country and other archive material, which all have enormous potential both for academics and in schools.
We welcome all those developments, especially the widening of the definition to include conservation of our natural heritage. At present conservation of our habitats, flora and fauna receives only about 9 per cent. of national heritage memorial funding; yet our hedgerows, heaths and sedges, and the extraordinary diversity and beauty of the British landscape in general, tell us a great deal about how our forefathers lived, and how we have created what is often a man-made landscape. As a society, we have not always been as careful as we should have been about that, or given the funding to preserve those great natural and man-made landscapes, so we welcome the fact that such projects will become eligible for funding.
We should like an assurance from the Minister that wider eligibility for nature conservation will also be recognised by the NHMF—the national heritage memorial fund—and that things will be on a more equal footing generally, not only through lottery funding but in terms of the conservation of nature and the built environment in general. Problems have undoubtedly been identified, as happened with the 1995 report on biodiversity. There is a great deal of work to do.
We welcome what the Minister said about the Victoria County History, since Staffordshire, the county of which I represent a part, is an especially fine example. I join the Minister in paying tribute to those who, like your colleague, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and like many Members of the House of Lords, have pressed for the change. I am glad that the Government have responded and clarified that aspect.
We have not always been as careful as we ought to have been about our local histories and oral histories, and our industrial heritage. We welcome the fact that those will now be taken within the ambit of the two funds.
We welcome not only the widening of the powers but the fact that more bodies will be eligible. The definition of eligibility for receiving funds should range more widely than the public bodies and charities established for a heritage purpose that it covers at present. As we understand the Bill, the new definition will mean that the criteria for eligibility for applying for funds will be both the heritage importance of the project and the public good. Anybody who is doing valuable heritage work will now be eligible to apply to the two funds and to receive grants.
Of course, that will include the private sector—another area that we need to explore in Committee. We welcome the idea in principle, but we foresee certain problems, which we can examine, although not necessarily tonight. In particular, we should like to hear an assurance from the Minister, either tonight or in Committee, that, just as the private houses he mentioned will be eligible, other areas of our heritage that are in private hands will be eligible, too.
For example, there are some wonderful examples of 1930s architecture in privately owned cinemas. Whether those will fall within the remit of funding remains to be seen. What about our industrial heritage, including premises that, although they may be in use at the moment, may also be listed buildings? There are many such in Yorkshire and Lancashire, and people have encountered difficulties in modernising and expanding them while maintaining the heritage.
The Minister, in common with other hon. Members, may have received an interesting letter from a company called Leigh Spinners, from Leigh in Lancashire, on that subject. That is another area that is worth exploring in Committee.
By and large, we support the widening both of the powers and of the eligibility of recipient bodies, but I want to put on record the fact that there are some serious problems to be addressed. In allowing the private sector access to heritage lottery funding, it is vital that genuine access, rather than token access, be made a priority.
Inevitably, there will also be problems involving clawback, when there is appreciation or development of privately owned sites that have received funding. For instance, it is the public interest that theatres in the west end of London in private hands, which are often fine works by architects such as Masham, should receive grants. I believe that applications are in train to the arts lottery board. It appears that the Bill would allow application on architectural grounds for privately owned theatres to the heritage lottery fund. We support that, but the system of matching funding must be different from and more rigorous than that for applications from publicly-owned theatres.
There is also the problem of how means testing will be done on private houses and theatres, and how development appreciation will be clawed back if capital appreciation results from lottery funding. There are concerns that require clarification. It was not clear from the debate in the other place whether the Government have thought them out.
The Minister gave a rather bland assurance that the Government's position on additionality remained the same. Baroness Trumpington, on Second Reading, stated:
The Government have always made it clear that money raised by the lottery for good causes was and is intended to be additional to public expenditure. The Government will not reduce public spending programmes to take account of awards from the lottery. That commitment cannot, however, mean that the Government should set aside the issue of what they can afford to spend on any programme which benefits from lottery funds compared to any other public expenditure programme. The opposite view would be to give an automatic protection to lottery-supported programmes which was not available to others. Such a result would be absurd."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 1996; Vol. 575, c. 567.]

There is an internal logic in that, but if one thinks about her view, one sees that it lets the Treasury or the Department of National Heritage make allowances in apportioning grant aid. That opens the door to the end of the additionality principle—a process that is already evident in some grants.
The Minister gave a partial view of the way in which English Heritage has been treated. He mentioned its slight funding increase this year, but, over the past few years, it has fared badly. There is no doubt that the new funds will do work that would otherwise have been done by English Heritage in some respects. In that sense, they are replacing money that should come through grant aid. The Minister slid off that point far too easily, especially in relation to the British museum, which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow very properly raised.
What the Minister said is wrong. If he was seeking to put the blame for the British museum's financial problems on bad management, he would do well to reconsider. People who know and love the British museum will take his criticisms very hard.

Mr. Sproat: I did not make them.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister threw a very partial light on the report and on who is responsible for the situation that faces the trustees of the British museum. I hope that in his reply, he will acknowledge the excellent work of the British museum and its very good trustees. In Dr. Robert Anderson it has one of the best national museum directors. Any other interpretation of the Minister's words would not be appreciated by the museum world, and would be unjust to good people and good work. I hope that he will reconsider what he said, because it is easy to put a malign interpretation on it.
The Minister was disingenuous about additionality in relation to the British museum. He knows perfectly well that national museums, such as the British museum, the Tate gallery, the national gallery and the national portrait gallery, that do not charge for admission, receive a far worse allocation of grant aid from his Department than museums that charge. He was reported in the press as having tacitly acknowledged that he and the Secretary of State took into account the charging policy of museums when apportioning grant aid. He discriminated against those that do not charge.

Mr. Sproat: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fisher: He denies it, but the record is that museums that do not charge have been penalised this year. That is an extraordinarily hostile political act, which puts his remarks this evening in a different context.

Mr. Dalyell: I was taken aback when the Minister replied to my question about the British museum. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said. We will come back to the matter in Committee. Some marvellous exhibitions have been laid on for the whole of Europe by the British museum, such as the current Chinese exhibition arranged by Carole Michaelson and her colleagues in the oriental department.

Mr. Fisher: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the spirit of Christmas, we should assume that the Minister misspoke, and that he will put the record right when he replies. If he does not, people will be shocked and depressed by an unwarranted attack on a very fine museum and a very fine director.
Additionality is much more complicated than the Minister suggested. He raised the charging policy of museums. It sits strangely with the Bill's avowed interest in increased access that he has been encouraging them to charge by giving favourable funding to those that charge. He has been celebrating those that charge. He well knows that, whenever a museum introduces charges, access to it declines.

Mr. Sproat: Rubbish.

Mr. Fisher: I shall give way to the Minister.

Mr. Sproat: Has the hon. Gentleman not seen the figures for the imperial war museum? Before it introduced

charges, it made people go through turnstiles so it knows exactly how many people visited. After it started charging, the number went up. Even with the science museum, where it is claimed that admissions went down, Sir Neil Cossons does not believe that that was the case, because no proper accounting was done before the introduction of charging. The museum's logbooks give ludicrous numbers of visitors for one day; it would have been impossible for it to hold so many people. For the imperial war museum, we have it in arithmetical black and white that there are more visitors; in the case of the science museum, Sir Neil Cossons believes that there are.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister should examine the history of charging museums. He will find that attendance at the national museum of Wales, the natural history museum and others has declined with the introduction of charging. He is right to say that it is difficult to say by precisely how much it has declined, because figures were kept on a fairly random, variable basis. No one disputes that; the Minister should not get so exercised. However, he cannot pray in aid precise figures. He should know that there were particular circumstances about the year after the imperial war museum introduced charges involving certain exhibitions. We are talking about the core collection.
If the Minister knew the history of the imperial war museum, which was very well run by Dr. Alan Borg, he would know that he is not comparing like with like. He is not comparing the figures for core collections; he is talking about specific exhibitions. The important thing about charging does not relate to special exhibitions, for which all museums and galleries sometimes charge, but to access to the core collections. They have been invested in and acquired by the public, who are now being denied free and open access to them. No doubt we will return to the issue, but the Minister should look at his statistics a little more carefully.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman not tending to underestimate the problems faced by the British museum? As I understand it, even if it introduces charging on the basis of the recommendations, it would still be faced with a shortage of resources for further development and might have to contemplate redundancies.

Mr. Fisher: The right hon. Gentleman will know that one relevant factor is that, when the British library moves out of the Reading Room, the British museum will lose a substantial amount of income, but the Government have not yet made it clear that they will fully compensate it. [Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene to say that the British museum will be fully funded and fully compensated for the loss of that revenue, that would be most welcome. I am happy to give way to him if he wishes to put that on the record, rather than do it from a sedentary position.

Mr. Sproat: I did not expect to have to go through the Red Book—after all, it is not all that long since we had the Budget—but it makes it quite clear that, for years two and three, the British museum will indeed be recompensed for the removal of the British library. That is absolutely black and white.

Mr. Fisher: I hope that that recompense will be full, and that there will be no shortfall. The right hon. Member


for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) is quite right to say that there are problems over and above those connected with the loss of the British library, but the British museum is a well-run institution, with a huge international reputation. We should recognise that it is a cultural jewel for the country. We should be proud of it, and fund it accordingly.
Leaving aside those differences, the Opposition support the general thrust of the Bill, which fits in well with some of the good recommendations of "Treasures in Trust". One problem with that report, however, is the slight hostility towards local authorities. The Bill encourages greater educational work in a sector that has suffered from Government policy.
Schools museum services around the country, and the number of school visits to museums, have declined because of the Government's hostility towards local education authorities. I welcome the fact that the Bill will fund educational projects, but new initiatives in such projects will be funded in the context of a general decline in support for the schools museum services, which are the bedrock infrastructure of heritage education in our schools. I hope that the Minister will understand that, and work more closely with the Department for Education and Employment.
We believe that the Bill represents a move in the right direction. The emphasis that it places on the natural environment and access, and its wider definition of eligibility, are in line with the Opposition's policies. It admirably prepares the way for a Labour Government, who will have a far more positive attitude towards our heritage and cultural life. For that reason, we commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Simon Coombs: It is an immense pleasure to contribute to the debate on a Bill that I greatly welcome, because, for the past five years, other hon. Members and I have called for it.
We debate the Bill against the background of the extraordinary success of the national lottery. The difference that lottery funding is making to the arts, heritage and sport is quite extraordinary and, dare I say it, beyond the dreams of avarice. In the past few months, however, it has become clear to the Government that one sector of our national heritage is missing out. I welcome the Government's commitment to put that right.
In debates on the lottery and tourism in 1994 and 1995, I asked for such a Bill to be introduced. On 24 June 1994, I said in the House:
The lottery can significantly enhance our ability to restore and preserve the built heritage of Britain, as well as its museums and galleries.
But what about those parts of the heritage that are still in private hands and are so excellently represented by the Historic Houses Association? Is the Minister willing to see funds made available to the owners of the great houses, castles and palaces of Britain on appropriate terms? If not, we may find ourselves contributing to a form of creeping nationalisation, which would be wrong."—[Official Report, 24 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 464.]
On 30 March 1995, I said in the House:
Private sector heritage sites and historic houses will face a problem as a result of the regulation that provides that the lottery's proceeds can go only to public or charitable bodies. Privately owned historic houses will have to achieve charitable status to benefit, which will create considerable problems for many of their owners.

The tax regime burdens the owners of historic houses and, as a result, dilapidation is continuing and the heritage is suffering. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not lose sight of that problem and will continue to look at ways in which help can be given to preserve our national built heritage that is in private hands."—[Official Report, 30 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1256.]
The cavalry has arrived today.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: It is Christmas.

Mr. Coombs: Yes, the Bill will bring the cheer of Christmas to many owners of historic houses, which, until now, have been threatened with dilapidation or closure.
I want to contribute to the debate because of the importance of our heritage to tourism. Last year, 23.7 million foreign visitors came to Britain, no doubt for a variety of reasons, but their desire to see our heritage must have been one of the strongest. Some argue that the Government do not give enough money to the arts, our heritage and tourism, but the lottery, which is enabling us to enhance our tourist attractions, will lead to a growth in the number of visitors. One could think of many examples of such attractions, but I shall limit myself to one. The new Tate gallery of modern art at the Bankside power station site, not far from the House, will undoubtedly attract to London many more visitors who love modern art.
The opportunities to entice more visitors to Britain will more than offset any reduction that the Government may seek to make in the money that they give to the British Tourist Authority or the English tourist board because of difficult financial times. We have created a honeypot, and the bees are coming to it from around the world.
I do not need to labour the importance of our heritage to tourism, because those who are present are well aware of that. Tourism will continue to be a massive generator of jobs, but that must be judged against the background of the degeneration of the infrastructure of so much of our heritage. The work needed to maintain our heritage goes on constantly, and in a sense gets more difficult every year because our heritage ages every year. That decay is all very well when people want to look at ruins. Stonehenge would look pretty odd if we rebuilt it, and I hope that we never do. It would obviously be nonsense to suggest that our prehistoric or Roman heritage should be kept in anything other than its current condition, but what about our heritage from the Jacobean and Tudor eras, which is in private hands and has suffered serious decay over many decades?
British people's interest and that of visitors in our joint heritage is intense and growing. There is no doubt that our generation is far more aware of our past and the importance of our history than any generation that came before it.
I am lucky enough to represent the constituency in which the Royal Commission for Historical Monuments for England has been relocated. I pay tribute to the work of Tom Hassall and his staff. They have created an extraordinarily rich treasure trove, which is now being explored by more and more visitors who come to see our monuments.
There is a growth of interest in this country's industrial heritage, so I welcome the Bill's provision to enable access to our industrial heritage and to promote education so that younger generations will become aware of the United Kingdom's industrial heritage.
In that context, I want to refer to another project in my constituency. The Great Western Railway museum in Swindon has occupied an extremely small building for many years, and a project is now before the national heritage memorial fund to convert a much larger building on the old railway works site into a magnificent new railway museum. It is an imaginative scheme, which is supported by the local council, and it could, in time, create a national railway museum of the south, which might complement—but not, I hope, rival—the excellent museum in York.
Interest in railways is intense in Swindon, which has a railway history that is the envy of other towns. That interest is not limited to Swindon and the surrounding area, but is matched by interest throughout the country and around the world. The romance of the Great Western Railway—God's wonderful railway—and of steam brings together people of all ages, each of whom has a small boy or small girl inside who is trying to escape, in remembering the days when they stood on the platform watching the steam engines of the past. I hope that those memories will be found in Swindon's museum of the future.

Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of a railway museum is that the locomotives should be kept in working order, so that we can see them, hear them and smell them in action and not look at them sitting in a building as a static exhibit?

Mr. Coombs: I welcome that intervention and assure my hon. Friend that there is every intention of providing a linking line from the main Great Western line to the museum, so that railway engines can be moved off the country's main railway network into the museum. It is also intended that a workshop will be created, where people will be able to watch engines being worked on by railway engineers—there are many such engineers living in my constituency who would love to get back to work, albeit in a museum, in order to demonstrate the skills that they mastered in their working lives. In addition, such engines as King George V and Caerphilly Castle will be on display and I look forward to selling my hon. Friend a ticket to the museum when it is built. However, I must stick to my subject and not allow our mutual love of railways—with which I am sure all hon. Members were born—to cause me to stray too far.
We must strike a note of caution. The NHMF and the heritage lottery fund are soon likely to be over-subscribed; despite the success of the lottery, there are more projects awaiting consideration than there are resources to fund them. It is therefore inevitable that some discrimination will be necessary and projects will have to be worth while and well thought out if they are to succeed in obtaining grant funding.
It is not only councils such as my own that are making bids to the HLF; I am glad to say that, rightly, many individuals are seeking to preserve heritage in their area. A quarter of a mile away from the railway museum is a scheme to save the mechanics institution—a building constructed in the 1950s by the Great Western Railway in order to educate its work force and give them an opportunity to understand the cultural advances of the

Victorian era. Long before the Education Act 1944 and the Arts Council, an enlightened capitalist company sought to give its employees access to education. The institution was a magnificent building, but it has been closed for many years and has fallen into total disrepair.
As part of the work undertaken a few years ago by candidates of the Common Purpose organisation, a group of people got together to see whether the mechanics institution could be saved from its current state of disrepair. I pay tribute to the efforts of, in the first instance, Colin Grattan and, more recently, Martha Parry and Donald Brunwin, who have tried to put together a project that could be the subject of a bid to the HLF. However, such ad hoc organisations find it extremely difficult to gain access to the professionalism that is necessary to make such projects work and to bring them to a standard that the HLF will accept.
I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is room for help to be given at an early stage, to evaluate schemes while they are still merely a dream or a principle at stake and to determine whether they are worth developing further. Recently, I had the opportunity of discussing that point with the chief executive of the NHMF, Anthea Case, and she assured me that anyone coming to the fund would be given as much help as possible, and I pay tribute to that helpful and understanding attitude among the NHMF's staff. There is a gap, which we could do more to fill by reaching out to people who have dreams and who want to try to help preserve our heritage. I would welcome an opportunity at a later stage to look for ways in which that might be achieved. There are obvious financial implications, but they need not be excessive, and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the matter.
That brings me to a more general point that should be taken into account when discussing the Bill—matching funds. In a recent debate on tourism, I talked about the problem of matching funds. I draw the House's attention to an example that I cited then: a proposal to give Kennet and Avon Canal Trust £25 million from the HLF. That was welcomed with enormous enthusiasm in Wiltshire and elsewhere along the line of the Kennet and Avon canal, but since the announcement was made, it has become clear that the matching funds needed to enable the scheme to go ahead are considerable—around £7 million has to be found from local sources, and that is not an easy task.
I put it to my hon. Friend that, sooner or later, we shall have to revisit the question of matching funds. If we have decided that a project is sufficiently worth while for us to devote £25 million to it, are we really saying that, if it proves impossible to find matching funds, we do not want the scheme to go ahead at all? We are in danger of appearing to say that. I hope that there will be some flexibility in assessing the quality of projects. They should not be assessed in the context of determining whether there is enough local enthusiasm.
There is always tremendous local enthusiasm for such projects, but there is a limit to the sum that we can ask local authorities to provide out of their necessarily limited budget. There is a limit to how much we can ask the private sector to contribute at local level. All hon. Members know of the constant pressure on the larger employing companies in any area to provide funding for charitable and voluntary organisations. There is a limit to what local fund raisers can raise. A canal stretching


100-odd miles from Bristol to London is not a local project and will not be easily funded locally to the tune of about £7 million. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have some thoughts on that subject, if not this afternoon, some time during the Bill's passage through the House.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) mentioned access. Of course we would agree that when we give money to, for example, historic houses, it is right to insist on public access—that lottery money cannot be used to prop up a house for its own sake.
We need to be sensitive. Some projects that are proposed as a result of the Bill's passage will involve very small houses that are still family homes. The idea that the general public should have an absolute, unfettered right to tramp through various rooms in those smaller houses lacks sensitivity. The principle of public access is right and obviously we must ensure that we do not go to the other extreme of handing over funds without public access, but I hope that sensitivity will be shown in deciding appropriate access.
Let us suppose that a house is a jewel set in a landscape and is threatened with dilapidation to the point of being unsafe and needing to be pulled down. Are we saying that, in those circumstances, the heritage is not worth saving as a jewel in the landscape, even if the public will have access only to the parkland? Are we insisting that every room or a selection of rooms should be available? seek from my hon. Friend the Minister a clue as to his thinking on that matter because, in my view, if we create too rigid a principle, we are in danger of ruling out our ability to help smaller houses, which are part of our heritage.
I very much welcome the Bill. It will create difficulties in terms of achieving a balance between the resources available to English Heritage and the national heritage memorial fund, but I am certain that that balance can be achieved and that, overall, the Bill's effect is benign. I welcome the fact that, after two years, the Government have concluded that ownership should not be an issue, and I very much hope that the Bill has a speedy passage.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The general welcome that the Bill has evoked reflects the widespread hope that many projects that have not been eligible for national heritage memorial fund help will, as a result of the enlargement of the scope of the funds and of those to whom moneys may be paid, bring about the restoration of heritage, and in some cases the creation of new facilities.
The Bill, although short, is important. It should be made plain that the Bill will not increase the money that the fund disperses. The cake is the same size, although the plates on which the slices are to be distributed will be substantially increased.
Most of the important points about the Bill have been made. I had supposed that it would be largely uncontroversial. It may have been slightly provocative to focus so much attention on the Bill's purpose—to increase access to heritage—at a time when access appears to be threatened by other policies of the Government.
The issue that has sparked a small explosion on both sides of the House—the funding of the British museum—is important. I venture with caution to step into that ring.

When the Minister intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Mr. Fisher) to say that he sought neither to encourage nor to discourage museums regarding a charging policy, he inadvertently adopted an inappropriate attitude for a Minister of the Crown and protector of the public interest.
Many of the great national collections have been accumulated on the assumption that they would remain free and open to access by all citizens, and a large proportion of the donations were explicitly made on that assumption. It is the duty of Ministers of the Crown, in their attitude to charging, to reflect that consideration. Neutrality about whether the British museum charges is not an appropriate posture. Neutrality about whether the national gallery receives, or must rule itself out from receiving, the benefits of Sir Denis Mahon's bounty is not a matter on which a Minister responsible for heritage should be neutral.
Although the task of taking decisions on such questions lies with the trustees, Ministers of the Crown cannot be mute on those issues and should make it plain that, as a matter of public policy, it is desirable that the great national collections remain free and open to access. Those collections should not be saved up for the rare special visit to London. They should be regarded as an archive for reference purposes, to be visited frequently, to be dropped in upon on occasion, when the spirit so moves a visitor, perhaps only to look at a single item, to compare it, reflect on it and be moved and inspired by it. It should not be necessary to purchase that access. Those who have charged for such access, in places such as the Victoria and Albert museum, have diminished our heritage by introducing that charging principle.
The question whether charging diminishes attendance at museums was not conclusively answered by the Minister's intervention about the imperial war museum, based on a relatively short period. There is a pretty strong a priori case against charging, as many people on limited incomes immediately exclude non-necessary expenditure from their spending. Although there have been vast numbers of visitors to the British museum from other countries—notably the United States—who regard much of what is there as world heritage, want to see it when they visit and are well able to afford to pay, there are ways of inducing such visitors to contribute to the costs other than compulsory charging, which adversely affects the least well-off members of our community.
I did not intend to comment on that matter at length. I simply wanted to note the irony that we are considering a Bill designed to increase access against that background. Having noted that, I shall pass on. However, before passing on, I want to ask the Minister whether it is wrong to view the expenditure decisions on museums in the Budget as not revealing Government policy. That double negative may be difficult to follow, but it certainly appeared that museums with a charging policy were favoured by the Budget and those with no such policy, or with a policy of not charging, did not find favour. The British museum, among them, suffered a cut in its grant of £1.3 million. That cannot have been entirely accidental. It was certainly widely believed to be the Government's intention to move in that direction. If the Government want to disavow that intention on the record, they ought to look again at their funding arrangements for the national museums and galleries, whose acquisition fund in particular is under considerable pressure.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) spoke about the mechanics institution, which I had the privilege of seeing on a recent visit to Swindon. I share his enthusiasm for the project and hope that it will be a successful applicant for assistance. I, too, have projects which I cherish and which I hope, as a result of the Bill, will be eligible for assistance.
I was interested to hear what the Minister said about the possibility of townscape heritage being brought within the ambit of the national heritage memorial fund. I have been thinking for some time that the townscape of Wick in Caithness—particularly Pulteneytown, built to a plan by Telford, and one of the first examples of a grid townscape in Scotland—is a site of great historic interest that needs substantial expenditure to restore it to its former glory. The fact that, under the Bill, multiple ownership will not stand in the way of applications for assistance should help projects such as the one at Wick to put together suitable applications for assistance.
On the limited question of access, I question whether the words in the Bill about imposing a duty on trustees to
bear in mind the desirability of public access
go far enough. That seems to be a subjective test, which is scarcely adequate to reflect the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House that public access is a proper consideration when determining whether money should be paid out.
There are obviously some objects that it would not be possible to keep on permanent display to the public; they may be very fragile, for instance. That sort of consideration should mean that it is not an absolute duty to offer public access in all circumstances. Quite apart from the difficulty of demonstrating whether the trustees have discharged their duty in this respect, the phrase does not go far enough. I therefore commend to the Government a phrase that could be subjected to a more objective test, such as: "The trustees shall give due weight to the significance of public access." I acknowledge that that is a Committee point, but, as I may not have the opportunity to serve on the Committee, I want to make it now.
I noted what the Minister said about the Government's intention to alter the provisions on the remuneration of trustees. I welcome the arguments behind that proposal. On the other hand, I notice that the same clause makes the somewhat surprising proposal that the trustees
may appoint such officers and servants as they think fit, on such terms … as they think fit".
That seems rather sweeping, although it may be standard practice with public bodies. Perhaps the Government will consider introducing guidance; the absolute discretion proposed in the Bill may not be right for a public body of this kind.
In general, I welcome the Bill and its widening of the eligibility criteria. I welcome the new emphasis on access and education, on information technology and on species conservation. I believe that it will enable the fund to do many of the things that it has wanted to do but has hitherto been prevented from doing. I hope that the legislation can be speedily enacted.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I welcome the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—in Milton's line, he and I were
nursed upon the self-same hill".
I recall his attitude to the original National Lottery etc. Bill. I do not allude to it in any spirit of unkindness on this occasion, but I am delighted to note that, despite his opposition to the legislation, he has retained his interest in the subjects that we are discussing tonight.
I apologise to the House for my brief absence at the start of the debate during the Minister's speech. The coincidence of Christmas and the arrival of the recess has meant that one's time is not entirely one's own. I therefore apologise if anything that I say is expressed in ignorance of anything that the Minister may have said when opening the debate.
I welcome the Bill, not least as it gives us the opportunity to praise the national heritage memorial fund and its trustees for their admirable conduct, performance, services and achievements over the past sixteen and a half years. I appreciate the antecedents of the Bill and the need to give greater freedom and flexibility to the trustees to perform—not least through the heritage lottery fund—tasks which everyone believes desirable. That has clearly been the consensus this evening.
I also recognise that the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 is not without its occasional critics. I was not the architect of the Act—we could start a decent-sized architectural practice with those who claim to have been its architect—but I had a subordinate job in the master mason's department. I hope that, over the next sixteen and a half years, it will come to be seen as having been a leather, not an iron, harness, which has enabled sensible and even regular changes to be made to the working of the national lottery, without the need to return to primary legislation.
I have not followed the debate in the other place, so I do not know whether the issue of English Heritage working abroad came up there. Some years ago, the National Heritage Select Committee said that it would be desirable if English Heritage were released to work abroad. I had hoped that this occasion might be taken to give legislative cover to that idea. My hon. Friend may tell me that no such cover is necessary; I hope that he will not tell me that such freedom is not desirable. Although English Heritage's headquarters is in my constituency, I stress that it has given me no briefing on this subject, and that I am not speaking on its behalf.
Matching funds are an important subject; I dare say they will be returned to in Standing Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) mentioned the Kennet and Avon canal. I declare an interest as a patron of the partnership project and the appeal application. I thought that he was perhaps a little unfair to everybody concerned when he alluded to the £25 million for a project that everybody believes should happen but did not mention the immense amount of work that the local community had already done. That was a vivid demonstration of how desirable it was that the project should be carried through.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I did not wish to suggest in what I said earlier that I had anything other than the greatest admiration for the work that had already been done.


I merely wished to point out how much more difficult it would be to find further funding, as opposed to the fund-raising that had been done. A huge extra burden will fall on the people in the localities along the length of the canal and it will be difficult for them to match the £25 million, as I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees.

Mr. Brooke: I take that point totally, and matching funding is a subject to which we should return.
I make the briefest possible reference to the Victoria County History, which has already been mentioned in the debate. Three Government Departments—the then Department for Education, the Department of National Heritage and the Department of the Environment—all sought to avoid taking responsibility for the Victoria County History. The Commission in Brussels believed that the British have a better co-ordinated civil service than any other country in the Union, but that problem was not a classic example of it working well. Co-operation between the three Departments might have solved the problem, but I am delighted that rescue has arrived through the amendment to the Bill in the Lords.
I am also delighted that the amendment was initiated by my noble Friend Lord Beloff. Parenthetically, he was a senior member of the library committee of the Oxford union when I was an officer of the union. I am delighted to enrol under his flag in this cause. Both of us were enrolled under the banner of the senior librarian of the union—I shall be brief in this diversion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will not pull me up—Canon Claude Jenkins, who was a remarkable figure and had been the librarian of Lambeth palace. He was not a man of the tidiest disposition, and his fellow canons in Christ Church felt that his garden should be tidied up. They decided to pay for a gardener, but they received a note in Canon Jenkins' enchanting and spidery hand saying, "By order of Canon Jenkins, his garden has this day been consecrated as a bird sanctuary." I bring him into the debate because his garden would clearly have been one of the beneficiaries under the Bill.
I also wish to pay tribute to C. R. Elrington, the former editor of the Victoria County History, who has undertaken an enormous sponsored journey up and down the length of this land in the past year to raise money for the history. I believe that he raised £27,000. One of his stopping places was a couple of miles from where I was staying in August this year. His journey was worthy of Defoe or Lady Celia Fiennes and, given that his itinerary was so detailed that it included exactly when he would be having breakfast, I was tempted, in the spirit of those earlier travellers, to go and observe both the breakfast and his departure, to cheer and huzza. The journey was enormously to his credit, but I am pleased that the Bill will mean that such enormous travels will not be so necessary in the future.

Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that there is a connection between C. R. Elrington, Canon Jenkin's and myself. C. R. Elrington and I both listened to Canon Jenkins's lectures on the Theodosian code.

Mr. Brooke: A debate of this sort is improved and enhanced by intelligence such as I have just received from my right hon. Friend, especially given the subject that we are discussing.
The last time that I offered my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench my participation in the Committee stage of a Bill, I am sorry to say that it was refused. I am therefore a little diffident about making the offer again, but the Bill is sufficiently important to me that I am happy to swallow my pride and do so. However, I should not sail under false colours, and I shall close with a brief word about museum charges, because they have been mentioned in the debate already.
I have no inherent objection to the principle of museum charges per se, but a distinction should conceivably be made between museums about whether charges are desirable. I am delighted that huge numbers of people visit our museums in London. We are periodically told by journalists how much better the French order such matters with the Louvre, but it is significant that far more people visit museums in London than visit museums in Paris.
My anxiety is that some potential visitors need to approach museums cautiously and try them out, not because of the public face of the museum but because they are unfamiliar with, or frightened by, the contents of the museum. People need to test the water and find out whether they like what is inside museums. I have an uneasy feeling that charging for entry to somewhere such as the British museum might cause some people never to go inside, when both my hon. Friend the Minister and I would wish them to become addicts of that culture. Charging might hinder that. I shall not labour the point: I merely wish to enter it as part of the spirit of the debate. In total, I support the Bill warmly, and I have greatly enjoyed taking part in the debate.

Mr. Sproat: I wish to respond briefly to some of the points made in this interesting, if short, debate. In particular, I wish to thank all those right hon. and hon. Members, starting with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who gave a strong, warm, general welcome to the Bill. I will return in a moment to the charging issue, which was the one area of mildly abrasive acrimony within our gentle debate—I am sure that we shall also return to it in Committee—but first I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm support for the Bill. He continued the tradition started in the other place, where the Bill was first debated.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central also raised an interesting point about nature conservation. The national heritage memorial fund is keen to support a wider range of nature conservation projects and the Bill will enable it to do so. Funding will be available, for example, for projects involving conservation of rare species, flora and fauna, and so on. He chose a good example of the widening of the activities of the national heritage memorial fund which it was not able to undertake under the rather restrictive definitions of the National Heritage Act 1980.
My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) raised the question of war memorials, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central also mentioned. It would be possible to help war memorials under the present dispensation, but it may be that the widening of the Bill and the psychological increase in the feeling that more causes can be supported will enable war memorials to receive the care and attention that my hon. Friend mentioned that they need. I hope that we shall return to that important example in greater detail in Committee.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned the case of privately owned cinemas and industrial premises, and asked whether they would be covered in the Bill. The answer is a firm yes. He also mentioned the case of Leigh mills, and I agree with him. I have been to Leigh mills, although it was some time ago and I cannot remember the exact details. I believe that *he building in its present form was built in about 1921 or 1922. I remember that the upper windows are of the architecture of that time. If a building is listed, the owner has to keep it up, which subtracts money from his business and employment. Listing is a difficult area, and Leigh mills is a good example of the problems that arise. It is the sort of case that we should examine in Committee.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central talked about the clawback. It is not a hypothetical issue. As I said in my opening speech, English Heritage already provides grants to private owners, and there has been a clawback on several occasions. I have looked through the list and, from memory, the biggest clawback in the past few years was £5,500. Sometimes it was £276 or £330. It was nearly always for the sale of a property, although in one case it was for the sale of land. The point is that it has been done, it could be done again and it should be done with rigour. If it is done, that is how it will occur. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks in that area.
I turn now to the British museum and to the points raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and subsequently by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central spoke about the excellence of the British museum. No one doubts the excellence of its scholarship—particularly that of Dr. Anderson, who is of world calibre. However, the mildly disagreeable comments that I made were not my views but those of the Edwards report. The Government did not ask the British museum to conduct an inquiry: the British museum trustees commissioned Mr. Edwards to do it. He found that there were deep and long-standing flaws in the museum's financial and general management, in its organisation and in its general efficiency.
I did not know that the matter would be raised tonight, so I have not refreshed my memory regarding the figures. However, I recall that there has been a 76 per cent. increase in the number of curatorial staff since 1972. That is just one example of the trustees not exercising the kind of control that they might have wished over an expanding staff. My right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir Wyn Roberts) pointed out that, even if charges were introduced, redundancies might still be necessary. That is the view of the Edwards report, not of the Government. It would be extremely sad, but there is a direct correlation between the lax grip on management in the 1970s and the state of the museum today. I am informed that the figure was not 76 per cent. but 70 per cent.—so my memory is not too bad.
The point is that the British museum trustees must decide whether to charge for admission. I know that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland does not agree with that, but the Government believe that such decisions must be left to the trustees. I have a scrap of

paper which sets out the details that I gave off the top of my head. As I was out by a few percentage points, perhaps I should refer to it. Of the 10 museums—the British museum, the imperial war museum, the national gallery, the national maritime museum, the national museums and galleries on Merseyside, the national portrait gallery, the natural history museum, the science museum, the Tate gallery and the Victoria and Albert museum—only four received an increase in cash grants between 1992–93 and 1996–97. However, all four charged throughout that entire period, with the exception of the V and A, which began imposing charges in October this year when Dr. Alan Borg—who had seen how well charges worked at the Imperial War museum—was instrumental in introducing them.
There is no question of the Government favouring those museums which charge. It is fair to make that assertion, but it is equally fair for me to refute it utterly. Museums received grant increases this year on the basis of how well they were run—it had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they charged. I put it to the House and to any fair-minded person that I could not go to Sir Neil Cossens—who has run a very tight ship at the Science museum in the past few years—and say, "Although you have done wonderfully well for your museum, and the British museum is in such a state that it has set up its own inquiry to investigate what has gone wrong, we will not reward you for doing well: we will take money from you and give it to someone who has not done his duty".
That would be deeply unfair.
Some museums received increased grants—the imperial war museum, the maritime museum and others. The hon. Gentleman should be able to remind me of them as he has been going on about it for long enough. The four museums that received increased grants this year did charge for admission, but they were not awarded the grants on that basis. The figures prove that under this Government the museums which do not charge have received more funding. Funding is not based on whether or not museums charge. The facts are irrefutable.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House for coming late to the debate. I went to considerable trouble to be here for seven o'clock, because I was told that it would begin then. The issue must be the survival of the British museum, which is a very special place. Whoever is to blame for what has gone wrong—my hon. Friend has understandably worked himself into a lather about it—the fact is that it is not the scholars or the public, who visit the museum in great numbers. It is crucial that the British museum should remain the flagship of our museums. We must not put the trustees into a straitjacket, restrict the scholarship and make it difficult for people, young and old, to visit the museum.

Mr. Sproat: That is a very important point, but it is not the only one. If museums care well for the artefacts in their charge—as the science museum and the natural history museum have done—it would be unfair to take money away from them to pay for those who have not performed their function. It is the parable of the virgins or the talents—[Interruption.] I was groping for the biblical quotation about the wise and the unwise virgins, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Of course, we shall do everything we can to help the British museum, but its trustees must decide whether to charge. We shall be very happy to provide advice or to meet the trustees to discuss the matter. I noticed that the Opposition spokesman did not tell us whether Labour would reinstate compulsory charging in those museums that have removed it already. I see Opposition Front Benchers nodding, so that is another pledge.

Mr. George Mudie: I was agreeing that my hon. Friend had not told the House.

Mr. Sproat: Perhaps he will tell us now. Labour should tell us whether it intends to reinstate charging. Charging currently brings in £15 million; if the British museum were to put aside the charging option, it would have to find that sum from Government funds. It is yet another example of the Labour party not telling us what it would do in government. I do not care what a Labour Government would do, but Opposition Members should have the courage of their convictions and tell the House whether they would forbid the museums to charge. If they would, they must confirm whether they would compensate the museums.

Mr. Fisher: I am happy that the Minister has given way on an issue that is hardly central to the Bill. We are getting distracted, but the Minister provokes me somewhat.
I shall make our position clear. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said on numerous occasions that the Labour party wishes to see access to all the core collections of our great national museums returned to the state of being free by the end of the century. To achieve that, we shall work with those museums. It is a matter not of compulsion, but of coherent partnership policies. Having discussed this matter with many of the museums, we believe that we can achieve that by the end of the century.
What a good way to celebrate the millennium—all our great national museums, such as the British museum and the Victoria and Albert, should be free and open to access. If the Minister is serious about the Bill and about our heritage, he should support that principle and work constructively with us when we are in government to ensure that it happens.

Mr. Sproat: That was an absolutely classic Labour weaselly pledge. Labour would like to see that happen by the end of the decade, but the hon. Gentleman did not and dare not say what Labour will do, because the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will not allow him to do so. All that the right hon. Gentleman allows Labour Members to do is to speak out of one side of their mouths, give a nudge here and a hint there. They say in private that of course they will do that, but when challenged at the Dispatch Box to say whether they will give another £15 million or £25 million to museums, they will not say.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister has such a crude and unimaginative understanding of these matters. As he said, it is not within the power of Government either to compel or to prevent charges. We believe that it is wrong, and we will work with those galleries and museums to ensure that charging ends. We will not compel them, and we will

certainly not fully fund them. The museums that do not charge have had roughly the same budget treatment, but they have deployed their resources differently to ensure that they do not have to charge. They have not received more favourable treatment than those museums that have chosen to charge. We believe that the museums that have charged could have organised their affairs in such a way that, like the Tate or the British museum, they did not need to charge.
We hope that, in the next three years, we can work with the museums, using lottery money and their grant in aid, but we will not give them favourable treatment, and we will certainly not compensate them for giving up charges. We believe that they can reorganise their budgets by the end of the century, and we will work with them to that end. We will not compel them to do so. As the Minister said, it is a matter for the trustees. We believe that most trustees want access to their core collections to be free. They will be working over the next three years with a Government who are positive on that point.

Mr. Sproat: That was another fudge. We still do not know whether Labour will give the museums £15 million. The hon. Gentleman is wrong: the museums that have not charged have received more in the past five years. That is not because they do not charge; it is just a matter of fact. I have given the figures.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) made a much more sensible speech. He talked about the lottery's great success, and was extremely modest about the fact that he was one of the first to say that private owners needed more help. Two thirds of listed houses are in private ownership. It was ludicrous that those private owners could not be helped, but now they will be.
My hon. Friend is an expert on tourism. Last year, 24 million tourists—a record number—visited this country. One of the main reasons why they come here is our heritage. The Bill will greatly help the tourist industry. The problem of matching funds is serious, and I look forward to returning to that issue in Committee.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland gave a general warm welcome to the Bill. He made some interesting points that we shall return to in Committee. I also look forward to discussing his major disagreement with me about charging for admission to museums.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said that English Heritage should be able to work abroad. He is right. It was partly with that ambition in mind that, earlier this year, English Heritage established its former direct labour force as an independent company, which is now able to use its considerable skills on projects beyond these shores. It is not the Bill that will allow that: it was English Heritage's wise and prescient move in setting itself up as an independent force.
With those few and gentle words, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation,
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CONTRACTING OUT

That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Allocation of Housing and Homelessness Functions) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts for Small Hereditaments) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.—[Mr. Coe.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That Sir David Mitchell be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr. John MacGregor be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Coe.]

Orders of the Day — Standard Spending Assessment (Hounslow)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coe.]

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I am most grateful to have this Adjournment debate, which I presume will be the last debate in 1996. It is wholly apposite that the last debate of the year should be on behalf of my constituents in Brentford, Isleworth, Hounslow and Chiswick, especially the most vulnerable and dependent who are looking to the House for help.
I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to bring to the House's attention the position on the Government's standard spending assessment for the London borough of Hounslow and the way in which the Labour-controlled council in Hounslow is wilfully ignoring the interests of its residents.
I am sorry that neither the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whose party controls Hounslow council, nor the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is the Labour party spokesman on local government, is present to participate in the debate. I am extremely sorry that no one from the Labour party is present to listen to a debate on matters relating to the borough of Hounslow and the concerns of the people who live there. I shall take note that no one from the Labour party has bothered to be present, and I shall make it known to all my constituents that Labour Members do not care.
I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition on 6 December about his party's proposals in Hounslow. All I have received 12 days later is a brief acknowledgement that my letter has been passed to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. My constituents will be interested to know that neither of them is here to defend their party's position. Perhaps they are too ashamed, or simply do not care any more about the old, the infirm, the battered or the dispossessed.
In my letter to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, I addressed him as "Dear Tony"—it is nice to talk about "Dear Tony" letters. I wrote:
I am writing with some indignation and outrage that your Labour Council in Hounslow is riding roughshod over the views of local people, including two of your own Labour Councillors, Cllr Vanessa Smith and Cllr Pat Nicholas, to penalise some of the most vulnerable members of my constituency.
I refer to the proposed closure by Hounslow Council of the Isleworth Day Care Centre, which enables hundreds of elderly and vulnerable people to receive care and support; and the proposed closure of the Chiswick Family Centre which helps disadvantaged children and their families.
Last year, Hounslow Council had a budget of £196 million. The Government's recent SSA announcement has enabled the Council to raise its total spending by another £3,790,000. The cost of keeping the Isleworth Day Care Centre open is £235,000 and that of the Chiswick Family Centre £30,000. This represents just 0.133 per cent. of the Council's total budget and more important less than 7 per cent. of the increase in SSA that has been granted to the Council
by the Government
for next year.
It is outrageous that the Council should attempt to make cheap political points by attacking the most vulnerable, especially after receiving this additional assistance from the Government.


It is simply mind-boggling that two of your own Councillors, who want the centres kept OPEN have been suspended from the Labour Party for their efforts. Is this what 'New' Labour stands for?
I am glad to see that a member of the Labour party has arrived to listen to what I have to say.

Mr. Tony Banks: I was just passing through.

Mr. Deva: I note that the hon. Gentleman has, now "passed through".
The letter continues:
Your Labour Council should get its priorities right and keep the Isleworth Day Care Centre and the Chiswick Families Centre OPEN. The two Labour Councillors should be re-instated and the closure plans cancelled forthwith.
That was nearly two weeks ago, but, as I said, I have received no reply, which speaks volumes in itself.
Last year, the Government gave Hounslow £98.9 million in revenue support grant; next year, that will be increased to £102.7 million—a rise of £3.8 million. Each year, the Government gives every local authority a standard spending assessment, or SSA, which constitutes their assessment of how much it should cost a local authority to provide a standard level of service. That governs the distribution of revenue support grant to each council. In addition to the revenue support grant, local authorities receive money from the Government through business rates, and they also raise funds through the council tax.
SSAs are built up from various separate elements for various services—education, social services, police, fire, highway maintenance and other services. The different geographical and social characteristics of each area are taken into account, such as the number of children, the number of elderly people and the number who need care. SSAs are a means of calculating Government grant distribution to different local authorities. They constitute neither a limit nor a target for local authorities' actual expenditure, but, all being equal, a higher SSA leads to a higher level of grant from the Government.
It is interesting to note what the Government have been giving Hounslow council. For the past few years, the council has regularly received increases in its SSA. In 1990, the SSA was £124 million; by 1993, it was £165.6 million. That rose to £170.4 million in 1994, £178.7 million in 1995 and £185.6 million last year; and the figure will be a massive £188.9 million in 1997. Next year—after we have allowed for the increase in Government grant and the fact that the council will, as ever, increase its council tax—Hounslow will, for the first time in its history, have a budget of more than £200 million.
I thank the Government for their fair treatment of Hounslow in allocating resources. I think it worth placing on record additional sums given through the single regeneration grant: a further £13 million has been provided for the regeneration of Brentford, which is now well under way, and a grant of another £7.3 million has been announced just this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for the regeneration of Isleworth, in particular its Ivybridge estate. Both those sums are in addition to the normal annual grant from the Government. How ironic it is that, in a week when the Government announce a grant of over £7 million for Isleworth, we must have this debate.
It is worth noting that Hounslow has done better than most local authorities in recent years. Its SSA has increased by 39.6 per cent. since 1991, in comparison with average increases of 36.3 per cent. for outer-London boroughs, and 33.6 per cent. for local government as a whole. The Government have been extremely generous to Hounslow, giving us about 6 per cent. more than they have given other local authorities.
How appalling it is that, in the midst of that extra funding, Hounslow's Labour council proposes to close the Isleworth day care centre and the Chiswick families centre, both of which are much-used and much-needed local facilities. They provide invaluable support for vulnerable elderly people in Isleworth, and for families in Chiswick.
The campaign to keep both centres open has been led by, among others, Mrs. Josephine Langton, a Conservative councillor in Chiswick. However, they face total closure for the sake of a mere £235,000 a year in the case of the Isleworth day care centre, and just £35,000 a year in the case of the Chiswick families centre. Given that Hounslow will have a budget of over £200 million next year, it is utterly callous of its Labour council to attack—inhumanely, cold-bloodedly and ruthlessly—the most vulnerable of my constituents.
That is why I wanted to initiate this debate, and why I wrote to the leader of the Labour party last week asking him to exert pressure on his councillors in Hounslow. I drew attention to the SSA settlement and the huge funds available to the council, and I now wait to discover how the Labour leader will respond to my letter—a letter that asked him to intervene to protect the elderly and vulnerable in my patch.
I place on record my admiration for two Labour councillors, Vanessa Smith and Pat Nicholas, who represent Isleworth's south ward. They want to keep the centres open—as I do—but what has been the reward for their efforts? Suspension from the Labour party.
Suspension from the Labour party for protecting the elderly, the infirm and the vulnerable? Punishment for caring? What sort of Labour party is this? What kind of uncaring monsters appear to be running the Labour party in Hounslow? Despite the SSA settlement, the revenue support grant and the additional Government funds for social services—£190,000 more was provided this year than last year—they are not listening. They are going to shut down those two centres.
More than 80 per cent. of my surgery cases now constitute complaints about the way in which Hounslow council spends its money: about how it cares not for its tenants, cares not for the quality of its housing stock and cares not for the homeless, given that 400 council homes are still unoccupied. We all know that the SSA is divided into a number of components. Within Hounslow's total SSA, the SSA for social services has been increased, as I have said. It is more than enough to keep those two centres open, but only if—it is a big if—Hounslow council decides that it wants to.
That is the nub of the problem. Despite massive public pressure locally, and although some 2,500 people have signed petitions in support of keeping the centres open—despite the extra funding announced by the Government, and despite pressure from their own councillors—those who run Hounslow council still say that they must close the centres. The problem is that Hounslow's Labour


council is wasting money hand over fist and is refusing to make sensible savings. Every pound that is saved on administration could be diverted to front-line services.
In calculating the SSA, I am sure that the Minister has taken into account the protection of my most vulnerable constituents. I shall give two examples of how Hounslow council could have saved if it had wanted, these two centres within the SSA. First, the council accepted an in-house bid from its direct labour force for the removal of waste from the borough. That is an essential service, but, by refusing to accept the lowest bid and accepting instead the more expensive in-house higher bid, the council turned down savings of about £400,000 a year—more than enough to divert to the social services budget to keep the centres open. The council chose not to do that.
Even now, the council could take a simple action to keep the centres open. Councillor Paul Lynch, the excellent Conservative leader on Hounslow council, and Councillor Barbara Reed, the Conservative social services spokesman on the council, proposed at a council meeting that the authority's budget be altered to keep the two centres open. They were voted down by a huge Labour majority.
At the request of UNISON, the borough's trade union, Councillor Lynch also asked at the last council meeting for the council to institute a purchasing policy to effect savings. The council totally ignored that suggestion and swept it under the carpet. What a strange turn of events—a Conservative council group leader and a Conservative Member of this House supporting the trades unions and Labour councillors in seeking to maintain essential services for the most vulnerable people in my constituency.
At present, each council department orders its own stationery, office furniture, computers, photocopiers and even paper clips. I have asked how much the council spends on paper clips but no one knows. What a shambles! If the council instituted an overall purchasing policy it is estimated that an annual saving of £35,000 could be made on stationery alone.
That would be enough to keep the Chiswick families centre open, and if the same policy was followed for the council's office furniture, computers and photocopiers, it would be possible to generate savings of £235,000 a year, which would be enough to keep the Isleworth day care centre open. What is more important: office desks and chairs in the civic centre and super-duper photocopiers, or helping frail, infirm elderly people in Isleworth and young children at risk and their families in Chiswick?
Hounslow Labour council has discretion: there is huge leeway. Local councillors could have chosen to exercise that discretion, but they have not done so. If that is so-called new Labour, give us old Labour. Better still, we should let the people know that Hounslow's Labour council is closing two valuable local centres without just reason, to try to make a political point against the Government. It will not wash.
Just one tenth of 1 per cent. of the council's total budget would keep the centres open, and they are provided for within the SSA. They may not be important to the Labour party, but the services they provide are vital to my constituents, as the Government have demonstrated by their generosity in the SSA settlement.
If the council has an ounce of humanity, even at this late hour it will re-examine its priorities, amend its budget proposals, and acknowledge that it can keep the Isleworth and Chiswick centres open. I urge the council to do that, and I urge the Government to make it clear that, if those centres close, it will be due to the callous intransigence of Hounslow's Labour administration. It runs counter to the generous SSA settlement, and is against all common sense and humanity.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) has raised some important issues relating to the way in which the standard spending assessment applies to the London borough of Hounslow.
I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents, and especially the elderly, the vulnerable and the infirm who depend on the Isleworth day care centre and the Chiswick families centre will take a great interest in what he has said. It is clear from what my hon. Friend said that those centres provide a valuable service to the community, and I am sure that those who benefit from them will have taken a special interest in his speech and in his clear plea on their behalf to Hounslow borough council.
My hon. Friend spoke about SSAs, and I should like to show how the Hounslow SSA fits into the overall system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment outlined in a statement on 27 November our proposals for local government finance for the coming financial year. Local government accounts for about a quarter of general Government expenditure. It would be absurd to imagine that, within this large total, there is no room for greater efficiency. Therefore, I make no apology for the fact that we have pursued such efficiencies vigorously, but I can also assure the House that we have approached our assessment of what is needed to maintain key services with equal vigour.
We have provided for an increase in total standard spending of 2.5 per cent. on a like-for-like basis. In allocating this total between services, we have given priority to education, social services, the police, and the fire service. We have proposed capping arrangements which ensure that virtually all authorities can spend the whole of any increase in SSA on those services. These proposals represent a sound balance between the need to sustain local government services, the scope for increased efficiency, and the scale of public expenditure which the country can afford.
The mechanism by which the public expenditure proposals are translated into figures for individual authorities is the SSA. Standard spending assessments form the basis for the distribution of the revenue support grant. Standard spending assessments are the Government's assessment of the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure which would allow any authority to provide a standard level of service, consistent with our view of the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure for all authorities.
The calculation of an authority's SSA follows general principles applied equally to all authorities, taking account of each authority's demographic, geographic and social characteristics. Differences in SSAs between authorities with the same service responsibilities are thus due to differences in their underlying characteristics.
My hon. Friend and the residents of Hounslow will be interested to know where Hounslow stands within this system, which is designed to bring about overall fairness in the distribution of revenue support. My hon. Friend gave an interesting account of how Hounslow has fared in recent years. Standard spending assessments were introduced in 1990–91, since when Hounslow's SSA has gone up by 51 per cent. The SSAs for outer-London boroughs have gone up by 42 per cent. on average over the same period. For local authorities overall, SSAs are up by 39 per cent. I know that my hon. Friend will find that of great interest.
For 1997–98, Hounslow borough's provisional SSA has been increased at about the average rate for outer-London boroughs—a 2 per cent. increase compared with 1.9 per cent. for outer london as a whole. In terms of total SSA per head, Hounslow ranked fifth out of the 20 outer-London boroughs. This increase in SSA is more than reflected in the provisional cap limit for the borough, which has risen by 2.1 per cent. Budgets can rise by £3.95 million if the authority feels that that is necessary.
I hope that shows that increasing needs in Hounslow have been recognised by the Government and reflected in the SSA over several years and again for next year's local government finance settlement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his wise words, which were founded upon his analysis of how Hounslow has fared and his judgment that it has been treated fairly with SSAs.
We have ensured that, among other things, by developing indicators to track spending needs. For instance, Hounslow has a relatively large ethnic minority population—extra costs arising from that are reflected in the measure of additional educational needs. As a London borough, Hounslow faces high employment costs—allowance is made in the area cost adjustment from which the borough benefits.
I drew attention to the priority that the Government were placing on education for next year. My hon. Friend will wish to underline to his authority the fact that

Hounslow's education SSA has increased by 4.1 per cent., placing it sixth out of the 20 outer London boroughs on a per pupil basis.
Some concerns have been expressed about funding for personal social services. The year 1997–98 will be tight for social services funding. The average outer London borough faces an SSA reduction of 0.4 per cent. However, even in a difficult year, Hounslow's social services SSA has risen by 0.5 per cent., or £190,000. Hounslow also receives an extra £1.46 million for 1997–98 from the special transitional grant for community care. Such funding is appropriate in the light of my hon. Friend's comments about people with particular needs.
On asylum seekers, on 26 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that local authorities will be reimbursed the reasonable costs that they incur in supporting adult asylum seekers. The exact details of the funding have yet to be finalised, but I assure my hon. Friend that other local services should not suffer. Separate funding arrangements have been made for children seeking asylum.
In the light of the important conclusions that my hon. Friend has drawn, I hope that that factual account of Hounslow's SSA, how it has risen and been dealt with this year, and how it compares with those of other authorities in this and other years, is of interest to him. I agree with him that the settlement for Hounslow is fair. The authority still has considerable discretion within a budget of more than £190 million to allocate resources on what it considers to be its priorities. If Hounslow uses its resources well and pursues efficiencies vigorously, there is no reason why it should not provide good-quality local services without excessive increases in local taxes.
Returning to my hon. Friend's main point about how Hounslow chooses to spend its funds, I believe that its decisions are matters for Hounslow borough council, but I am sure that it and my hon. Friend's constituents and Hounslow residents will have listened with great interest to his powerful plea.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eight o 'clock.